3 ms·

I wonder if these laws could be challenges under freedom of speech laws? Isn't determine what is done with your body via will a final act of speech that should

by shkkmo 7y ago

I wonder if these laws could be challenges under freedom of speech laws? Isn't determine what is done with your body via will a final act of speech that should be protected?

throwaway744678 7y ago
That seems far-fetched, at best. Freedom of speech guarantees your right to say that you want this, but does not force anyone to actually comply with it. Especially if it requires breaking a law.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  Who said anything about forcing people to comply? I am talking about the constitutionality of certain laws that that make it illegal to comply with an individual's last wishes (when those wishes would not impinge of the freedom of others) The point is that an act that is explicitly authorized in a will should not qualify as abuse of a corpse, not that no laws should apply to the disposal of a corpse. If your will stipulates that your body be used to commit a criminal act, the should be prevented by the normal application of the law. Laws should not impact an individual's right for self determination of the disposal of a their body without a clear set of harms that are being ameliorated (such as in other exceptions to the prohition of prior restraint) I am a bit surprised with the pushback here. Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    > Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice. There's a lot of leeway in enforcement of all laws and if you could present evidence that the treatment the corpse received was consistent with a religious practice you'd probably be fine, though there would be levels where the conduct is limitable (eg: public display of the corpse as it decomposes for example). For all the language of "shall make no law" or "shall not infringe" there are many laws that make limitations on freedom of speech, religion, and bear arms. It's hard to imagine any law standing up to a maximal interpretation of freedom of religion for example because a religion can be anything and hold any precepts. Remains treatment laws were actually addressing a need and harm at the time where corpses were being dug up for medical study against the wishes of the deceased and the restrictions work because they're largely in line with the majority of religions especially in the US. It hasn't really been challenged because very few people actually want to do something against the law with their relatives corpses.
michaelt 7y ago
So, first you gotta set up a PAC to donate skulls to politicians...
OJFord 7y ago
Not a chance, anything around integrity of final will and testament would be a much better fit than free speech. IANAL though, no idea where it would sit on the scale from laughed-out-of-the-room to stands-a-chance.
denton-scratch 7y ago
Your Last Will and Testament is (AFAICT - IANAL) not really final. * It can be challenged on the grounds that its provisions are unlawful. Leaving all your money to your cat might be an example. * It can apparently be challenged on the grounds that it is unfair; deceased parents leaving their children destitute by leaving all their money to a pet-care charity might be an example. * Many wills are deliberately couched in terms that are vague or confusing; this may be in the service of avoiding inheritance taxes, but it opens the way for challenges. * There may be evidence outside the will itself that the testator has deliberately contrived his legacy so as to avoid his debts. As far as I can see, your will is really just an expression of your intentions. You can't enforce it (of course). If your executor egregiously violates the express intentions of deceased, they can be sued by relatives. But in general, executors seem to have considerable latitude; it is assumed that, having been appointed by the deceased, they are reasonably familiar with their intent. Anyhow, I don't think your corpse is part of your estate; I don't think executors can dispose of it in the same way they might dispose of land, paintings and investments. Incidentally, Freedom of Speech laws are quite rare. I don't know of any country other than the USA that has constitutional protections for speech. Certainly there is no legal protection for speech in the UK, other than the vague principle that "anything that is not forbidden by law is permitted by law".
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > Incidentally, Freedom of Speech laws are quite rare. I don't know of any country other than the USA that has constitutional protections for speech. I think freedom of speech is almost universally considered an inalienable human right. It tends to be protected by international treaty obligations (which usually have the force of law?). Wikipedia says: >> Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Regarding the UK, the English Bill of Rights protects free speech and I believe it still has the force of law and is cited in legal cases.
  - 7y ago

by shkkmo 7y ago

I wonder if these laws could be challenges under freedom of speech laws? Isn't determine what is done with your body via will a final act of speech that should be protected?

throwaway744678 7y ago

That seems far-fetched, at best. Freedom of speech guarantees your right to say that you want this, but does not force anyone to actually comply with it. Especially if it requires breaking a law.

shkkmo 7y ago
Who said anything about forcing people to comply? I am talking about the constitutionality of certain laws that that make it illegal to comply with an individual's last wishes (when those wishes would not impinge of the freedom of others) The point is that an act that is explicitly authorized in a will should not qualify as abuse of a corpse, not that no laws should apply to the disposal of a corpse. If your will stipulates that your body be used to commit a criminal act, the should be prevented by the normal application of the law. Laws should not impact an individual's right for self determination of the disposal of a their body without a clear set of harms that are being ameliorated (such as in other exceptions to the prohition of prior restraint) I am a bit surprised with the pushback here. Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  > Death rituals are incredibly personal and tied up with cultural and religious mores. It seems that freedom of religion and freedom of speech should protect such a personal and significant choice. There's a lot of leeway in enforcement of all laws and if you could present evidence that the treatment the corpse received was consistent with a religious practice you'd probably be fine, though there would be levels where the conduct is limitable (eg: public display of the corpse as it decomposes for example). For all the language of "shall make no law" or "shall not infringe" there are many laws that make limitations on freedom of speech, religion, and bear arms. It's hard to imagine any law standing up to a maximal interpretation of freedom of religion for example because a religion can be anything and hold any precepts. Remains treatment laws were actually addressing a need and harm at the time where corpses were being dug up for medical study against the wishes of the deceased and the restrictions work because they're largely in line with the majority of religions especially in the US. It hasn't really been challenged because very few people actually want to do something against the law with their relatives corpses.

michaelt 7y ago

So, first you gotta set up a PAC to donate skulls to politicians...

OJFord 7y ago

Not a chance, anything around integrity of final will and testament would be a much better fit than free speech. IANAL though, no idea where it would sit on the scale from laughed-out-of-the-room to stands-a-chance.

denton-scratch 7y ago

Your Last Will and Testament is (AFAICT - IANAL) not really final. * It can be challenged on the grounds that its provisions are unlawful. Leaving all your money to your cat might be an example. * It can apparently be challenged on the grounds that it is unfair; deceased parents leaving their children destitute by leaving all their money to a pet-care charity might be an example. * Many wills are deliberately couched in terms that are vague or confusing; this may be in the service of avoiding inheritance taxes, but it opens the way for challenges. * There may be evidence outside the will itself that the testator has deliberately contrived his legacy so as to avoid his debts. As far as I can see, your will is really just an expression of your intentions. You can't enforce it (of course). If your executor egregiously violates the express intentions of deceased, they can be sued by relatives. But in general, executors seem to have considerable latitude; it is assumed that, having been appointed by the deceased, they are reasonably familiar with their intent. Anyhow, I don't think your corpse is part of your estate; I don't think executors can dispose of it in the same way they might dispose of land, paintings and investments. Incidentally, Freedom of Speech laws are quite rare. I don't know of any country other than the USA that has constitutional protections for speech. Certainly there is no legal protection for speech in the UK, other than the vague principle that "anything that is not forbidden by law is permitted by law".

shkkmo 7y ago
> Incidentally, Freedom of Speech laws are quite rare. I don't know of any country other than the USA that has constitutional protections for speech. I think freedom of speech is almost universally considered an inalienable human right. It tends to be protected by international treaty obligations (which usually have the force of law?). Wikipedia says: >> Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Regarding the UK, the English Bill of Rights protects free speech and I believe it still has the force of law and is cited in legal cases.
- 7y ago