3 ms·

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

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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
      Rights are not limited to "legal" rights.
      - bhupy 7y ago
        You're right, but the philosophical natural right is even more permissive. The law is our way of tempering the natural right.
        pmiller2 7y ago
        In neither case, do you have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents.
        bhupy 7y 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 7y 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?
        bhupy 7y ago
        > Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? The same moral framework under which you have the right to contribute to killing 35,000 people/year because you want a quick/convenient way to get to work everyday.
        7y ago
  - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
    Are we constructing a police state? How do we wind down emergency measures? These are completely valid and vital questions we should be asking right now, especially since the balance of the discussion almost exclusively falls on the side of expanded and unquestionable police power. History shows that emergency and "temporary" measures end up being permanent and irrevocable. Look at the Patriot Act. I am interested in public safety. And it's really frightening how any well-intentioned critique of lockdown ends up with responses like yours that sound like "how dare you consider that, you inhuman, dangerous fool!"
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Nobody is suggesting the creation of a police state. We need to maintain lockdowns until we don't. Specifically, we need to develop measurable, scientific criteria for easing lockdowns, similar to how the state of California and the Bay Area counties have done. Once cases reach a sufficiently low level that we can handle the remaining epidemic via testing and contact tracing, then and only then is it safe to start returning to normal. Along with this must come criteria for re-imposing the lockdown -- the moment things get beyond the point where contact tracing, etc. can handle existing cases, then we need to tighten back up. Government already has the authority to impose these lockdowns as a public safety measure. There is no additional "police state" power being created here de novo. If you want to reopen the economy now without considering these things, then, yes, that does make you an inhuman, dangerous fool.
      - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
        > Nobody is suggesting the creation of a police state. That's explicitly what's being suggested. What else is a centrally-planned, police-enforced, compulsory lockdown and shutdown of the civilian economy? What's worse is indefinite house confinement.
        pmiller2 7y ago
        What's being suggested is a temporary public health measure. Please point out where I suggested otherwise. Again, I repeat temporary, public health measure, where criteria for lifting said measures are specified in advance. Your rights have no bearing on this. You have no right to endanger me or my family. You have no right to promote the spread of a disease that's already killed 60,000+ people. You have no right to force people back to work to be so endangered.

bhupy 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
    Rights are not limited to "legal" rights.
    - bhupy 7y ago
      You're right, but the philosophical natural right is even more permissive. The law is our way of tempering the natural right.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        In neither case, do you have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents.
        bhupy 7y 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 7y 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?
        bhupy 7y ago
        > Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? The same moral framework under which you have the right to contribute to killing 35,000 people/year because you want a quick/convenient way to get to work everyday.
        7y ago
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
  Are we constructing a police state? How do we wind down emergency measures? These are completely valid and vital questions we should be asking right now, especially since the balance of the discussion almost exclusively falls on the side of expanded and unquestionable police power. History shows that emergency and "temporary" measures end up being permanent and irrevocable. Look at the Patriot Act. I am interested in public safety. And it's really frightening how any well-intentioned critique of lockdown ends up with responses like yours that sound like "how dare you consider that, you inhuman, dangerous fool!"
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Nobody is suggesting the creation of a police state. We need to maintain lockdowns until we don't. Specifically, we need to develop measurable, scientific criteria for easing lockdowns, similar to how the state of California and the Bay Area counties have done. Once cases reach a sufficiently low level that we can handle the remaining epidemic via testing and contact tracing, then and only then is it safe to start returning to normal. Along with this must come criteria for re-imposing the lockdown -- the moment things get beyond the point where contact tracing, etc. can handle existing cases, then we need to tighten back up. Government already has the authority to impose these lockdowns as a public safety measure. There is no additional "police state" power being created here de novo. If you want to reopen the economy now without considering these things, then, yes, that does make you an inhuman, dangerous fool.
    - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
      > Nobody is suggesting the creation of a police state. That's explicitly what's being suggested. What else is a centrally-planned, police-enforced, compulsory lockdown and shutdown of the civilian economy? What's worse is indefinite house confinement.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        What's being suggested is a temporary public health measure. Please point out where I suggested otherwise. Again, I repeat temporary, public health measure, where criteria for lifting said measures are specified in advance. Your rights have no bearing on this. You have no right to endanger me or my family. You have no right to promote the spread of a disease that's already killed 60,000+ people. You have no right to force people back to work to be so endangered.