11 ms·

> Your rights ended where the rights of 60,000+ now dead in the US began. This is a super simplistic view of reality. I get that my rights are limited and cont

> Your rights ended where the rights of 60,000+ now dead in the US began. This is a super simplistic view of reality. I get that my rights are limited and contingent on circumstance to some extent. But violating the right to assembly should be treated much more seriously than you are leading on.

pmiller2 6y ago
On the contrary, it's you who has a simplistic view. You have no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, just as you had no right to promote the spread of a disease that's going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. This is why public health officials have the legal authority to impose these lockdowns. I wish everyone who believed as you do would "assemble" at the graves of those who died because of them.
- bhupy 6y ago
  This is an extremely tired and inaccurate characterization. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is actually protected by the 1st Amendment, per the Brandenburg v Ohio ruling. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Fine, but you still have no right to promote the spread of a disease that will kill hundreds of thousands of people. If you're going to downvote on a point, downvote on a substantive one. Here is what was actually written by Holmes: > The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. I maintain that my argument remains unchanged based on the full quotation. Your rights do not trump (hah!) public safety.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      You literally do have the right to do that, at least legally. Edit: yes, and Holmes was wrong — and the decision overturned. The Brandenburg precedent establishes the "imminent lawless action" test. Promoting the opening of the economy (notwithstanding the death count) fails this test, as it is manifestly not "lawless" to spread disease by living your life. If you had smallpox and accidentally spread it to me by going on about your own life, you cannot be held liable for that.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Rights are not limited to "legal" rights.
        bhupy 6y ago
        You're right, but the philosophical natural right is even more permissive. The law is our way of tempering the natural right.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        In neither case, do you have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents.
        bhupy 6y ago
        Incorrect, on both counts. Especially the latter, because morality isn't absolute. What you think is a moral right can be different from what I think is a moral right.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? Or, because I'm a billionaire who wants to make more money? Do I have the right to kill you in self defense for suggesting so?

pmiller2 6y ago

On the contrary, it's you who has a simplistic view. You have no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, just as you had no right to promote the spread of a disease that's going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. This is why public health officials have the legal authority to impose these lockdowns. I wish everyone who believed as you do would "assemble" at the graves of those who died because of them.

bhupy 6y ago
This is an extremely tired and inaccurate characterization. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is actually protected by the 1st Amendment, per the Brandenburg v Ohio ruling. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Fine, but you still have no right to promote the spread of a disease that will kill hundreds of thousands of people. If you're going to downvote on a point, downvote on a substantive one. Here is what was actually written by Holmes: > The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. I maintain that my argument remains unchanged based on the full quotation. Your rights do not trump (hah!) public safety.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    You literally do have the right to do that, at least legally. Edit: yes, and Holmes was wrong — and the decision overturned. The Brandenburg precedent establishes the "imminent lawless action" test. Promoting the opening of the economy (notwithstanding the death count) fails this test, as it is manifestly not "lawless" to spread disease by living your life. If you had smallpox and accidentally spread it to me by going on about your own life, you cannot be held liable for that.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Rights are not limited to "legal" rights.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        You're right, but the philosophical natural right is even more permissive. The law is our way of tempering the natural right.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        In neither case, do you have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents.
        bhupy 6y ago
        Incorrect, on both counts. Especially the latter, because morality isn't absolute. What you think is a moral right can be different from what I think is a moral right.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? Or, because I'm a billionaire who wants to make more money? Do I have the right to kill you in self defense for suggesting so?