7 ms·

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

• 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?
              • bhupy 6y 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.
                • pmiller2 6y ago
                  Except that I don't kill 35,000 people per year. Try again.
    • pmiller2 6y ago
      It absolutely is a crime to knowingly spread an infectious disease in many states. For example: https://www.shouselaw.com/willful-exposure https://www.shouselaw.com/willful-exposure
      • bhupy 6y ago
        Sure, but one of the biggest complications of COVID is that majority of transmission is asymptomatic.
        • pmiller2 6y ago
          And, that's almost the entire reason why lockdowns are necessary to prevent its spread. Remember how we had lockdowns when Ebola came to the US? Oh, yeah, we didn't, because it only spreads when symptoms are present.
          • bhupy 6y ago
            Sure, it's definitely an argument in favor of lockdowns — and I don't necessarily disagree with that. What I disagree with is the argument that even entertaining the counterargument (that the deaths are some how "worth it") is tantamount to daylight murder. We have the right to entertain that tradeoff, and we also have the right to exercise it if society decides to.
            • pmiller2 6y ago
              No, we don't have the right to entertain a tradeoff that sacrifices people for profits.
              • bhupy 6y ago
                First of all, we absolutely have the legal right — it's well within the confines of the Brandenburg test, so I have no idea what you're on about there. Second of all, we entertain this tradeoff all the time. If we just all stopped driving cars, we would save about 35,000 lives per year. It would likely cripple the economy (until we can find alternatives), but we all just decide that it's worth it to not cripple the economy. It's an example of us sacrificing lives for economic activity (or in your words, "profit"). Maybe the tradeoff is actually wrong (and it could be!), but it's by no means illegal to make that tradeoff...
  • gnusty_gnurc 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.