6 ms·

Those rights can't be taken away... without existing legislation. There are many rights that can be taken away, freedom of movement for example in the case of

by anhner 1y ago

Those rights can't be taken away... without existing legislation. There are many rights that can be taken away, freedom of movement for example in the case of prisoners, but you need laws in order to not make that taking away a crime itself. You can't just apprehend and throw someone in your basement because they stole something from you. Same thing with children's phones, a teacher can't just take away the phone because they didn't have the authority before.

devsda 1y ago
Now I'm curious. Is there a law that carves out specific exemptions for parents disciplining kids/teenagers like grounding, taking away phone and internet privilege etc.
_bin_ 1y ago
Sure, I think this just looks a little alien from an American perspective because most of our rights are set up as explicit negatives to block the government from legislating them away, more than to prevent Joe or Jane Teacher from taking a phone. "Congress shall pass no law..." I guess the nordics don't have a common-law tradition and so never inhereted the in loco parentis doctrine that allows schools to take substantial actions regarding students? I'm not familiar with their legal history.
- jofzar 1y ago
  You have free speech, but you can't say a certain threat that is in a whitest kid you know sketch. It's the same thing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&pp=ygUcd2hpdGVzdCBraWRzIHlvdSBrbm93IHRyZXZvcg%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&pp=ygUcd2hpdGVzdCB...
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    This has always seemed blatantly unconstitutional, though, intentionally abused to create a chilling effect. It's not something I have or will say, but if "I want to kill Fred" isn't classed as a Virginia v. Black "true threat", the government has no legal basis for charging. Technically the statute isn't unconstitutional, it's just widely-abused.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > most of our rights are set up as explicit negatives to block the government from legislating them away, Of course, as we've discovered, those rights don't mean much, when the executive doesn't want to recognize them. So what was the point anyway?
  - psunavy03 1y ago
    They also don't mean much when state governments just ignore them and never get called to account (and I can point to examples on both sides of the aisle).
  - II2II 1y ago
    It's too early to make that claim. There are multiple branches and levels of government to deal with situations like this. They have worked in the past for smaller scale violations. They should work in the present for larger scale violations. The problem is that it takes time, it always took time, so a lot of people are going to get hurt in the process. (Granted, it is also important for people to fight for their rights because the current government is pushing the limits.)
    - malcolmgreaves 1y ago
      > current government is pushing the limits The Republicans* are. Important to be factually accurate here’s the Democrats have never done anything remotely this lawless and authoritarian before.
      - psunavy03 1y ago
        . . . aside from supporting slavery and then the Dixiecrats opposing civil rights, you mean? If you actually look at American history, the ugly parts are ultimately bipartisan.
        hackyhacky 1y ago
        > . . . aside from supporting slavery and then the Dixiecrats opposing civil rights, you mean? If you actually look at American history, the ugly parts are ultimately bipartisan. You are really pushing both-sides-ism to its limits. It goes without saying that if you have to go back that far in history to find an analogy to today's abuse of power, you are proving GP's point: the lawlessness of the Republican party is unprecedented in modern history.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- neom 1y ago
  Technically it only takes 38 states governments, no? Certainly the Americans would never tolerate such an amendment, never the less it is possible.
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago
  Americans don’t have constitutional rights. It’s a fantasy that has crumpled the second it hit the reality of having a dictator as president and a political party that doesn’t care about laws. The Republicans have deported American citizens (children) who were born in America. The Republicans have arrested a judge in Milwaukee because they didn’t like that judge following the law.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    This wouldn't be the first time that it took a while for the courts to redress wrongs. Dred Scott technically stood until rendered obsolete by the Thirteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board didn't happen until the fifties. The courts didn't catch up to applying the Alien Enemies Act to japanese during WWII until after the war had ended. This doesn't mean that we don't have constitutional rights. The whole point of an inalienable right is that it's an inherent right recognized by governance. The state can't take them away, only violate them. As for your other points, I think you're actually keying on the wrong one; the administration's actions with Garcia are much more clearly wrong. The Wisconsin Supreme Court today temporarily suspended Judge Dugan despite the fact that four of its seven justices generally lean liberal, and are elected rather than appointed. We'll see if there's anything to the charges. If not, maybe we'll see each other at a protest, but it doesn't appear she was "following the law". As for the children, I believe that was due to a policy of keeping families together; if their parents must leave the country, they must follow or be placed in foster care. Dismissing rule-of-law as a concept is both premature and counterproductive, in the sense that it only discourages people who could otherwise focus on using the checks and balances in place for this reason to rein in the administration.
- groby_b 1y ago
  AFAIK, yes, in loco parentis isn't a thing. Rights of the child (or, overall, the individual) are first and foremost. Children commonly have voice in e.g. court proceedings affecting them, too. Nordic legal system is interesting - it avoids a lot of Roman/Germanic/Anglo-Saxon influence and is rooted instead in the old tradition of "Tings". (Nordic communal gatherings). Which means there's a strong base of communal consensus instead of precedent - in the small, reflected by the presence of lay judges in legal proceedings. In the large, reflected in the Nordic countries together having a set of very closely coordinated legal systems. (Since late 1800s, I think?) It's super-interesting (if legal systems are interesting to you ;)
  - apelapan 1y ago
    There is something called "tillsynsplikt" in Swedish law. Hard to translate, but perhaps "obligation of exercising care/authority". This normally applies mostly to the parents of a child, but is taken over by the school during school time. The obligation comes with fuzzy yet extensive rights to enforce order, in whatever way and towards whatever goal can be argued to be in the big-picture-best-interest of the child or group of children. Of course there are various laws specifically granting rights to children. To decide if a particular act is lawful or not, you (or a court!) needs to weigh all the relevant laws against each other.

by anhner 1y ago

devsda 1y ago

Now I'm curious. Is there a law that carves out specific exemptions for parents disciplining kids/teenagers like grounding, taking away phone and internet privilege etc.

_bin_ 1y ago

Sure, I think this just looks a little alien from an American perspective because most of our rights are set up as explicit negatives to block the government from legislating them away, more than to prevent Joe or Jane Teacher from taking a phone. "Congress shall pass no law..." I guess the nordics don't have a common-law tradition and so never inhereted the in loco parentis doctrine that allows schools to take substantial actions regarding students? I'm not familiar with their legal history.

jofzar 1y ago
You have free speech, but you can't say a certain threat that is in a whitest kid you know sketch. It's the same thing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&pp=ygUcd2hpdGVzdCBraWRzIHlvdSBrbm93IHRyZXZvcg%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&pp=ygUcd2hpdGVzdCB...
- _bin_ 1y ago
  This has always seemed blatantly unconstitutional, though, intentionally abused to create a chilling effect. It's not something I have or will say, but if "I want to kill Fred" isn't classed as a Virginia v. Black "true threat", the government has no legal basis for charging. Technically the statute isn't unconstitutional, it's just widely-abused.
hackyhacky 1y ago
> most of our rights are set up as explicit negatives to block the government from legislating them away, Of course, as we've discovered, those rights don't mean much, when the executive doesn't want to recognize them. So what was the point anyway?
- psunavy03 1y ago
  They also don't mean much when state governments just ignore them and never get called to account (and I can point to examples on both sides of the aisle).
- II2II 1y ago
  It's too early to make that claim. There are multiple branches and levels of government to deal with situations like this. They have worked in the past for smaller scale violations. They should work in the present for larger scale violations. The problem is that it takes time, it always took time, so a lot of people are going to get hurt in the process. (Granted, it is also important for people to fight for their rights because the current government is pushing the limits.)
  - malcolmgreaves 1y ago
    > current government is pushing the limits The Republicans* are. Important to be factually accurate here’s the Democrats have never done anything remotely this lawless and authoritarian before.
    - psunavy03 1y ago
      . . . aside from supporting slavery and then the Dixiecrats opposing civil rights, you mean? If you actually look at American history, the ugly parts are ultimately bipartisan.
      - hackyhacky 1y ago
        > . . . aside from supporting slavery and then the Dixiecrats opposing civil rights, you mean? If you actually look at American history, the ugly parts are ultimately bipartisan. You are really pushing both-sides-ism to its limits. It goes without saying that if you have to go back that far in history to find an analogy to today's abuse of power, you are proving GP's point: the lawlessness of the Republican party is unprecedented in modern history.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
neom 1y ago
Technically it only takes 38 states governments, no? Certainly the Americans would never tolerate such an amendment, never the less it is possible.
malcolmgreaves 1y ago
Americans don’t have constitutional rights. It’s a fantasy that has crumpled the second it hit the reality of having a dictator as president and a political party that doesn’t care about laws. The Republicans have deported American citizens (children) who were born in America. The Republicans have arrested a judge in Milwaukee because they didn’t like that judge following the law.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  This wouldn't be the first time that it took a while for the courts to redress wrongs. Dred Scott technically stood until rendered obsolete by the Thirteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board didn't happen until the fifties. The courts didn't catch up to applying the Alien Enemies Act to japanese during WWII until after the war had ended. This doesn't mean that we don't have constitutional rights. The whole point of an inalienable right is that it's an inherent right recognized by governance. The state can't take them away, only violate them. As for your other points, I think you're actually keying on the wrong one; the administration's actions with Garcia are much more clearly wrong. The Wisconsin Supreme Court today temporarily suspended Judge Dugan despite the fact that four of its seven justices generally lean liberal, and are elected rather than appointed. We'll see if there's anything to the charges. If not, maybe we'll see each other at a protest, but it doesn't appear she was "following the law". As for the children, I believe that was due to a policy of keeping families together; if their parents must leave the country, they must follow or be placed in foster care. Dismissing rule-of-law as a concept is both premature and counterproductive, in the sense that it only discourages people who could otherwise focus on using the checks and balances in place for this reason to rein in the administration.
groby_b 1y ago
AFAIK, yes, in loco parentis isn't a thing. Rights of the child (or, overall, the individual) are first and foremost. Children commonly have voice in e.g. court proceedings affecting them, too. Nordic legal system is interesting - it avoids a lot of Roman/Germanic/Anglo-Saxon influence and is rooted instead in the old tradition of "Tings". (Nordic communal gatherings). Which means there's a strong base of communal consensus instead of precedent - in the small, reflected by the presence of lay judges in legal proceedings. In the large, reflected in the Nordic countries together having a set of very closely coordinated legal systems. (Since late 1800s, I think?) It's super-interesting (if legal systems are interesting to you ;)
- apelapan 1y ago
  There is something called "tillsynsplikt" in Swedish law. Hard to translate, but perhaps "obligation of exercising care/authority". This normally applies mostly to the parents of a child, but is taken over by the school during school time. The obligation comes with fuzzy yet extensive rights to enforce order, in whatever way and towards whatever goal can be argued to be in the big-picture-best-interest of the child or group of children. Of course there are various laws specifically granting rights to children. To decide if a particular act is lawful or not, you (or a court!) needs to weigh all the relevant laws against each other.