3 ms·
We're talking about whether people should be permitted to sign away their right to speech. I think you've conceded that such is permissible at least for a limi
by mikkupikku 6mo ago
We're talking about whether people should be permitted to sign away their right to speech. I think you've conceded that such is permissible at least for a limited duration. Shall we quibble the permissible durations, or are you done?
- ceejayoz 6mo agoSure; we have to resolve conflicts between two sets of people with rights sometimes. The inalienable right to free speech doesn't extend to defamation and fraud; the inalienable right to freedom of movement doesn't apply to jailed murderers. Unconscionability is a bit like obscenity; hard to perfectly define, but sometimes quite clear.
- SauntSolaire 6mo ago> The inalienable right to free speech doesn't extend to defamation and fraud You have a strange definition of "inalienable".
- ceejayoz 6mo agoNot really; it's a conflict between two groups and sets of rights. I have the inalienable right to not be defamed and defrauded. Now we have to resolve the contradiction as a society. That it's sometimes messy doesn't mean we ditch the concept of rights.
- SauntSolaire 6mo agoThose are not inalienable rights either, they're legal rights. Here, courtesy of Cornell law: "An inalienable right is a fundamental entitlement inherent to every person that cannot be sold, transferred, or taken away by the government. These rights, often called natural rights are considered essential, cannot be surrendered by the individual, and are not dependent on laws." Just Google "is x an inalienable right" next time.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoAn inalienable right can also be a legally protected one. "Inalienable" is an assertion; a should. The right not to be genocided is inalienable. It gets violated still.