3 ms·

> A possible solution might be adding "by any legal entity" to existing statements of protections of natural rights. > Congress shall make no law abridging the

> A possible solution might be adding "by any legal entity" to existing statements of protections of natural rights. > Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom from unwelcome perception of the people by any legal entity, foreign or domestic Err, how is this supposed to work? "shall make no law" works for freedom of speech because by default speech is unregulated. The framing doesn't work for preventing unwelcome perception even by the government, because unwelcome perception results from actions that are by default unregulated. For this to make sense, the current surveillance economy would have to only been enabled by congressional law that allowed them to start creating dossiers. As far as I'm aware, outside of a few narrow laws (eg FCRA), this is not the case. Rather the surveillance economy is legal by default, and no laws have made it illegal. Furthermore, to apply this general approach of reigning in government-like corporations, it would have to be something like "Congress or any legal entity shall make no law abridging the freedom ...". Which also seems fraught with problems depending on what "legal entity" ends up being construed as. > Though you probably won't like this perspective, every interaction with these systems is a choice How can I have a bank account, a practical necessity of the modern world, while choosing to avoid a dossier being built by the surveillance company "ChexSystems" ? Sure, in a sense it is still a choice to have any bank account. Sometimes the framing of choice can be useful, but more often than not its used as justification for an illusion of consent, where actually doing the alternative requires one to be independently wealthy and live in an off grid cabin in the woods. > massive corporations have convinced the nation that they are more powerful than governments What does this "convincing" have to do with the logical implications of the law? I'd say the thing massive corporations have errently convinced us of is that they should have equivalent standing as individuals. This is what allows them to hide behind the US's framing of natural rights to claim those "rights" for themselves at scale, often at the expense of individuals' rights.

waterheater 3y ago
> "shall make no law" works for freedom of speech because by default speech is unregulated. The framing doesn't work for preventing unwelcome perception even by the government, because unwelcome perception results from actions that are by default unregulated. I'm confused by your perspective here. Yes, they're both by default unregulated, and that's the point. > For this to make sense, the current surveillance economy would have to only been enabled by congressional law that allowed them to start creating dossiers. As far as I'm aware...this is not the case. Rather the surveillance economy is legal by default, and no laws have made it illegal. A principle factor in the development of speech protection is technology, starting with the printing press and moving into domains like clothing. Technology has enabled speech to flourish in more ways than anyone could possibly imagine. Yet, the protections on speech are some of the most robust that we have, even after 200+ years when certain forms of speech cause direct harm and conflict with other constitutionally-protected rights. Perception is even more fundamental than speech. Consider that perception has been around for longer in human existence than speech; all animals and babies perceive, after all. From a technological standpoint, the camera has been around for less than 200 years, and the first modern considerations of privacy stem from an issue with public photography (see Warren and Brandeis). Frankly, I believe we're only just realizing the impacts of unwelcome perception because of the present state of technology. The impact of unwelcome perception can cause as much if not more pain than insults; I personally believe more it's more painful. My point here is, both speech and perception are by default unregulated and changes how another human feels and therefore acts. When weaponized by large entities using technology, speech is used to oppress. Making freedom from unwelcome perception a constitutional principle would be revolutionary in the purest sense of the word, bringing much challenge to its implementation, but I resolutely believe it would prove as foundational to protecting liberty as protecting freedom of speech, if not even moreso. If you would use a different word than "unwelcome," I'm interested to hear what it is and why you prefer it. > definition of a legal entity "An entity refers to a person or organization possessing separate and distinct legal rights, such as an individual, partnership, or corporation. An entity can, among other things, own property, engage in business, enter into contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued. An entity is capable of operating legally, suing and making decisions through agents, e.g. a corporation, a state, or an association. A legal entity corresponds to the notion of a legal person. A legal entity holds rights, and each entity has a legal status" [1]. Perhaps "entity" is too broad. The term "artificial person" [2] is more targeted. > I'd say the thing massive corporations have errently convinced us of is that they should have equivalent standing as individuals. Great point. They're persons, but they're artificial persons, so a distinction should be made in the law. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entity [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/artificial_person https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/artificial_person
- mindslight 3y ago
  > I'm confused by your perspective here. Yes, they're both by default unregulated, and that's the point. Speech and perception are both unregulated actions by default. But we're not talking about trying to preserve the freedom of perception, but rather we're trying to regulate perception to prevent unwanted perception. "Congress shall make no law" works for speech, because the goal is to preserve the basic legality of speech and prevent speech from being regulated. Whereas for perception, the default state is full of unwelcome perception (just as the default state of speech is full of unwelcome speech!). So it's not necessary for congress to make a law for there to be unwelcome perception, rather it's necessary for congress to pass laws to prevent unwelcome perception. Ultimately I'd say that negation is very important, especially due to the negative framing of rights, as it creates a double negative with its associated uncertainty. Does this clear up what I'm saying? Separately, I don't love "unwelcome" but I also don't see a straightforward replacement. I think "perception" is itself an interesting way to frame things, although I'd be extremely worried about things like surveillance companies claiming that their databases of dossiers aren't themselves perception, and it's only things like reports that are.

waterheater 3y ago

> "shall make no law" works for freedom of speech because by default speech is unregulated. The framing doesn't work for preventing unwelcome perception even by the government, because unwelcome perception results from actions that are by default unregulated. I'm confused by your perspective here. Yes, they're both by default unregulated, and that's the point. > For this to make sense, the current surveillance economy would have to only been enabled by congressional law that allowed them to start creating dossiers. As far as I'm aware...this is not the case. Rather the surveillance economy is legal by default, and no laws have made it illegal. A principle factor in the development of speech protection is technology, starting with the printing press and moving into domains like clothing. Technology has enabled speech to flourish in more ways than anyone could possibly imagine. Yet, the protections on speech are some of the most robust that we have, even after 200+ years when certain forms of speech cause direct harm and conflict with other constitutionally-protected rights. Perception is even more fundamental than speech. Consider that perception has been around for longer in human existence than speech; all animals and babies perceive, after all. From a technological standpoint, the camera has been around for less than 200 years, and the first modern considerations of privacy stem from an issue with public photography (see Warren and Brandeis). Frankly, I believe we're only just realizing the impacts of unwelcome perception because of the present state of technology. The impact of unwelcome perception can cause as much if not more pain than insults; I personally believe more it's more painful. My point here is, both speech and perception are by default unregulated and changes how another human feels and therefore acts. When weaponized by large entities using technology, speech is used to oppress. Making freedom from unwelcome perception a constitutional principle would be revolutionary in the purest sense of the word, bringing much challenge to its implementation, but I resolutely believe it would prove as foundational to protecting liberty as protecting freedom of speech, if not even moreso. If you would use a different word than "unwelcome," I'm interested to hear what it is and why you prefer it. > definition of a legal entity "An entity refers to a person or organization possessing separate and distinct legal rights, such as an individual, partnership, or corporation. An entity can, among other things, own property, engage in business, enter into contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued. An entity is capable of operating legally, suing and making decisions through agents, e.g. a corporation, a state, or an association. A legal entity corresponds to the notion of a legal person. A legal entity holds rights, and each entity has a legal status" [1]. Perhaps "entity" is too broad. The term "artificial person" [2] is more targeted. > I'd say the thing massive corporations have errently convinced us of is that they should have equivalent standing as individuals. Great point. They're persons, but they're artificial persons, so a distinction should be made in the law. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entity [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/artificial_person https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/artificial_person

mindslight 3y ago
> I'm confused by your perspective here. Yes, they're both by default unregulated, and that's the point. Speech and perception are both unregulated actions by default. But we're not talking about trying to preserve the freedom of perception, but rather we're trying to regulate perception to prevent unwanted perception. "Congress shall make no law" works for speech, because the goal is to preserve the basic legality of speech and prevent speech from being regulated. Whereas for perception, the default state is full of unwelcome perception (just as the default state of speech is full of unwelcome speech!). So it's not necessary for congress to make a law for there to be unwelcome perception, rather it's necessary for congress to pass laws to prevent unwelcome perception. Ultimately I'd say that negation is very important, especially due to the negative framing of rights, as it creates a double negative with its associated uncertainty. Does this clear up what I'm saying? Separately, I don't love "unwelcome" but I also don't see a straightforward replacement. I think "perception" is itself an interesting way to frame things, although I'd be extremely worried about things like surveillance companies claiming that their databases of dossiers aren't themselves perception, and it's only things like reports that are.