5 ms·

For everyone saying this is a violation of the 1st amendment - The 1st only extends to what you can say on your personal property. There is a reason you can't

by LAMike 7y ago

For everyone saying this is a violation of the 1st amendment - The 1st only extends to what you can say on your personal property. There is a reason you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it's because you are infringing on the property rights of the people who bought a ticket to the movie, and the landloard who is expected to keep everyone safe. You don't have any property rights to any other human other than your own body by default. That being said, the future will be filled with AR glasses with the nude version on default and that's going to be very weird.

donatj 7y ago
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. Nothing about what you said is correct. The FIRE in a crowded theater argument has nothing to do with property rights. It's about creating dangerous situations. Deep fakes aren't infringing anyone else's property rights, other than maybe very tenuously arguably considering likeness "intellectual property". In the United States however you have no expectation of privacy in public, so a photograph taken of you in public is fair game. See: Paparazzi
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  >I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Actually I wonder where this family ideas come from. There must be some engine promulgating the bizarre notion that the only real rights are property rights and all others must derive from them or be dismissed.
  - randallsquared 7y ago
    That engine is consistency. It just doesn't apply to actually existing law.
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      So they will return North America to the Indians? And antebellum mansions to the descendants of the slaves who built them? Perhaps it is merely a _claim_ of consistency just convoluted enough that those who are advantaged by the ideology can jump on board.
  - User23 7y ago
    That engine is libertarianism, which is basically just objectivism that isn't firing on all cylinders. This post is not an endorsement of objectivism by the way, both are ludicrous. Taleb nailed this: there is no single perfect scale-independent political philosophy. A quick pass at what I prefer at various scales: Family: Something a lot like Communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Neighborhood: Libertarianism (mutal respect for property boundaries and common spaces). City/Town: Democracy. State: Republic. Federal: Federal Republic. Obviously these are just my preferences, although I think the family level one is virtually universal among people who want their families to succeed. The point isn't that I'm right or wrong about any level, it's that different systems are optimal for different scales.
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      It's interesting that the first two seem to be more or less universally implemented through out the world. Although the neighbor level seems to be "leave each other alone including territoriality but aid in the event of emergency". It's interesting that many of the most notorious times are when that neighborhood level breaks down: Moments of extremely intrusive totalitarianism such as the European witch trials, China's cultural revolution, cults. It's also interesting that people seem to naturally form similar organization up to the neighbor sized groups but above that anything can happen. I'm guessing this is the result of evolving in essentially neighborhood sized groups. I suspect there is something useful to be found in this stuff.
cjensen 7y ago
Your comment is almost entirely wrong. "Fire in a crowded theater" is trope which means the First Amendment does not protect speech that is very likely going to cause imminent harm. It has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights. It is a "trope" because in rhetoric, it almost always used incorrectly to justify First Amendment exceptions which have nothing to do with imminent harm. Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever.
- User23 7y ago
  > Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever. Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you have the right to prevent your image from being used to endorse a product without your permission.
  - cjensen 7y ago
    Yep, that is a good point about the limitations. Point I was making is there is no wholesale property right, but you make an important note.
tick_tock_tick 7y ago
You are legally allowed to yell "FIRE" in a movie theater. The idea you're not is a myth from a early 1900s supreme court ruling. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1748&context=wmborj https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
- chrshawkes 7y ago
  Especially if there is a fire, what're you supposed to yell?
  - thrwayxyz 7y ago
    Endless war is a mistake. Which is what people were arrested for in that case.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cjensen 7y ago
  Not quite correct. You are not allowed to yell fire in a movie theater if there is no fire and the yell is likely to cause imminent harm. It's a "myth" only in the sense that this simple rule (can't use speech to cause physical harm) is use in an attempt to justify things that are not imminent. For example, in the infamous Supreme Court ruling, it was used to justify banning Jehovah's Witnesses from distributing pamphlets encouraging people to lobby the government against the draft. That was an incorrect and stupid use of "shouting fire" because the speech does not cause imminent harm, nor does it cause physical harm except through legally changing public opinion. So it's a "myth" only in the sense that it is a sure marker of a dishonest argument: if someone uses it in speech, they are almost certainly using it to try to justify something which is not the same thing at all.

by LAMike 7y ago

donatj 7y ago

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. Nothing about what you said is correct. The FIRE in a crowded theater argument has nothing to do with property rights. It's about creating dangerous situations. Deep fakes aren't infringing anyone else's property rights, other than maybe very tenuously arguably considering likeness "intellectual property". In the United States however you have no expectation of privacy in public, so a photograph taken of you in public is fair game. See: Paparazzi

TomMckenny 7y ago
>I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Actually I wonder where this family ideas come from. There must be some engine promulgating the bizarre notion that the only real rights are property rights and all others must derive from them or be dismissed.
- randallsquared 7y ago
  That engine is consistency. It just doesn't apply to actually existing law.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    So they will return North America to the Indians? And antebellum mansions to the descendants of the slaves who built them? Perhaps it is merely a _claim_ of consistency just convoluted enough that those who are advantaged by the ideology can jump on board.
- User23 7y ago
  That engine is libertarianism, which is basically just objectivism that isn't firing on all cylinders. This post is not an endorsement of objectivism by the way, both are ludicrous. Taleb nailed this: there is no single perfect scale-independent political philosophy. A quick pass at what I prefer at various scales: Family: Something a lot like Communism (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). Neighborhood: Libertarianism (mutal respect for property boundaries and common spaces). City/Town: Democracy. State: Republic. Federal: Federal Republic. Obviously these are just my preferences, although I think the family level one is virtually universal among people who want their families to succeed. The point isn't that I'm right or wrong about any level, it's that different systems are optimal for different scales.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    It's interesting that the first two seem to be more or less universally implemented through out the world. Although the neighbor level seems to be "leave each other alone including territoriality but aid in the event of emergency". It's interesting that many of the most notorious times are when that neighborhood level breaks down: Moments of extremely intrusive totalitarianism such as the European witch trials, China's cultural revolution, cults. It's also interesting that people seem to naturally form similar organization up to the neighbor sized groups but above that anything can happen. I'm guessing this is the result of evolving in essentially neighborhood sized groups. I suspect there is something useful to be found in this stuff.

cjensen 7y ago

Your comment is almost entirely wrong. "Fire in a crowded theater" is trope which means the First Amendment does not protect speech that is very likely going to cause imminent harm. It has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights. It is a "trope" because in rhetoric, it almost always used incorrectly to justify First Amendment exceptions which have nothing to do with imminent harm. Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever.

User23 7y ago
> Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever. Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you have the right to prevent your image from being used to endorse a product without your permission.
- cjensen 7y ago
  Yep, that is a good point about the limitations. Point I was making is there is no wholesale property right, but you make an important note.

tick_tock_tick 7y ago

You are legally allowed to yell "FIRE" in a movie theater. The idea you're not is a myth from a early 1900s supreme court ruling. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1748&context=wmborj https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

chrshawkes 7y ago
Especially if there is a fire, what're you supposed to yell?
- thrwayxyz 7y ago
  Endless war is a mistake. Which is what people were arrested for in that case.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cjensen 7y ago
Not quite correct. You are not allowed to yell fire in a movie theater if there is no fire and the yell is likely to cause imminent harm. It's a "myth" only in the sense that this simple rule (can't use speech to cause physical harm) is use in an attempt to justify things that are not imminent. For example, in the infamous Supreme Court ruling, it was used to justify banning Jehovah's Witnesses from distributing pamphlets encouraging people to lobby the government against the draft. That was an incorrect and stupid use of "shouting fire" because the speech does not cause imminent harm, nor does it cause physical harm except through legally changing public opinion. So it's a "myth" only in the sense that it is a sure marker of a dishonest argument: if someone uses it in speech, they are almost certainly using it to try to justify something which is not the same thing at all.