3 ms·

let me weigh in as one of the above sample points to say, that sounds like "sometimes that right can be infringed" with more words, which yeah, I am okay with

let me weigh in as one of the above sample points to say, that sounds like "sometimes that right can be infringed" with more words, which yeah, I am okay with an alternate interpretation with the exact same implications might be "that right isn't absolute", which, yeah, I am okay with ultimately it's just semantics that fails to meaningfully address GP's comment

dragonwriter 5y ago
It's critically different. If, as real property analogy, I have fee simple title to a parcel part of which is subject to utility easement, the utility company’s access within the scope of the easement is not an infringement of my right of exclusive control, it is outside of the scope of that right. Similarly, most people who support laws that you see as “infringing” on the right of free speech who agree that a right with that name exists view the definition of the scope of that right more narrowly than the people who see the law as an infringement.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  you've twice said "most people" don't view the "fire in a theater" analogy to be a limitation on a right, yet here I am, one of those people, telling you that yes, I do indeed view it as one
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > you've twice said "most people" don't view the "fire in a theater" analogy to be a limitation on a right, No, I haven't. In fact, I’ve said nothing in this thread about that analogy (and nothing at all about it, IIRC, on HN except [in summary form] that it has fuck-all to do with the actual law, either now or when it originally appeared as dicta in an abomination of a decision.) Nor have I said anything about what “most people” view as a “limitation” on a right. What I’ve said is about that most people who support a given law that others characterize as an “infringement” of the right do bot view it as an infringement, but as an act outside the scope of the meaning of the right. > yet here I am, one of those people Even if literally everything you said preceding this wasn't false, “one” ≠ “most”, except in a particular degenerate case where it is also “all”.
    - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
      so far, of the data you've presented plus the data we see here, the sample size is 1, me, and 100% of respondents disagree with your proposition, so it's unclear where you are getting "most" from -- but let's ignore all that and grant you the point for now if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying there is a difference between society viewing something as outside the boundaries of a right, versus society viewing something as an allowed, permitted-by-society infringement on a right if we assume that is true, then what are the implications to OP's post? e.g. the vaccination mandate can be presented as either "outside the boundaries of the right" for whatever right those protesting the mandate cite, or an allowed, permitted-by-society infringement on that right so what's the difference?

dragonwriter 5y ago

It's critically different. If, as real property analogy, I have fee simple title to a parcel part of which is subject to utility easement, the utility company’s access within the scope of the easement is not an infringement of my right of exclusive control, it is outside of the scope of that right. Similarly, most people who support laws that you see as “infringing” on the right of free speech who agree that a right with that name exists view the definition of the scope of that right more narrowly than the people who see the law as an infringement.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
you've twice said "most people" don't view the "fire in a theater" analogy to be a limitation on a right, yet here I am, one of those people, telling you that yes, I do indeed view it as one
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > you've twice said "most people" don't view the "fire in a theater" analogy to be a limitation on a right, No, I haven't. In fact, I’ve said nothing in this thread about that analogy (and nothing at all about it, IIRC, on HN except [in summary form] that it has fuck-all to do with the actual law, either now or when it originally appeared as dicta in an abomination of a decision.) Nor have I said anything about what “most people” view as a “limitation” on a right. What I’ve said is about that most people who support a given law that others characterize as an “infringement” of the right do bot view it as an infringement, but as an act outside the scope of the meaning of the right. > yet here I am, one of those people Even if literally everything you said preceding this wasn't false, “one” ≠ “most”, except in a particular degenerate case where it is also “all”.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    so far, of the data you've presented plus the data we see here, the sample size is 1, me, and 100% of respondents disagree with your proposition, so it's unclear where you are getting "most" from -- but let's ignore all that and grant you the point for now if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying there is a difference between society viewing something as outside the boundaries of a right, versus society viewing something as an allowed, permitted-by-society infringement on a right if we assume that is true, then what are the implications to OP's post? e.g. the vaccination mandate can be presented as either "outside the boundaries of the right" for whatever right those protesting the mandate cite, or an allowed, permitted-by-society infringement on that right so what's the difference?