3 ms·

If you define "right" as "you have the ability to do X and face legal consequences for having done it," then I an absolutely in favor of the right of free speec

by geofft 7y ago

If you define "right" as "you have the ability to do X and face legal consequences for having done it," then I an absolutely in favor of the right of free speech of the Pizzagate folks to get themselves arrested. So, great, we all believe in free speech for everyone. What word would you like to use for "the ability to do X without legal consequence from the government"? Because that seems like a more interesting discussion.

antisemiotic 7y ago
>If you define "right" as "you have the ability to do X and face legal consequences for having done it," This is a completely useless definition, as it means literally everyone has a right to everything. E.g. I have a "right" to murder you and then face the legal consequences for doing so.
- geofft 7y ago
  (Yes, that's my point.)
ColanR 7y ago
> "the ability to do X without legal consequence from the government" That would be, 'it's not illegal'. I think there are four different things in play here. a) a fundamental right, because you are human; this is something that a government ought to respect. b) something which the government has said is legal to do; i.e., something the goverment says is OK. c) the responsibilities which a citizen must bear; or, what happens if you break the law d) the rights to which a citizen is entitled: the respect which the government actually gives you. I guess I conflated some of those things. > If you define "right" as "you have the ability to do X and face legal consequences for having done it," That would be a combination of (a) and (c), where you have the human right to say what you please, but as a citizen you have to deal with the consequences. That's different from, say, murder, where you don't have the human right to murder and you also broke the law (and have to face the consequences). It's a trivial distinction in most cases, but not all.

by geofft 7y ago

antisemiotic 7y ago

>If you define "right" as "you have the ability to do X and face legal consequences for having done it," This is a completely useless definition, as it means literally everyone has a right to everything. E.g. I have a "right" to murder you and then face the legal consequences for doing so.

geofft 7y ago
(Yes, that's my point.)

ColanR 7y ago

> "the ability to do X without legal consequence from the government" That would be, 'it's not illegal'. I think there are four different things in play here. a) a fundamental right, because you are human; this is something that a government ought to respect. b) something which the government has said is legal to do; i.e., something the goverment says is OK. c) the responsibilities which a citizen must bear; or, what happens if you break the law d) the rights to which a citizen is entitled: the respect which the government actually gives you. I guess I conflated some of those things. > If you define "right" as "you have the ability to do X and face legal consequences for having done it," That would be a combination of (a) and (c), where you have the human right to say what you please, but as a citizen you have to deal with the consequences. That's different from, say, murder, where you don't have the human right to murder and you also broke the law (and have to face the consequences). It's a trivial distinction in most cases, but not all.