4 ms·

Is freedom of speech a positive right or a negative right, in that sense?

pelle 17y ago
The key to understanding negative or positive rights is that it is seen from the point of view of the government. Freedom of speech is a negative right as it specifically disallows the government from censoring you.
- nobody_nowhere 17y ago
  Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury. The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'. [edit: many, not all in the bill of rights]
  - steamer25 17y ago
    I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government. Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
  - maw 17y ago
    I guess you could look at the right to a trial by jury as the right to be not tried by a single person. Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B61FB55/ http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more. But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.
    - gort 17y ago
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury (I'm not sure if this is being distributed legally. It's in a collection of his essays called "A Devil's Chaplain".)
laut 17y ago
Freedom of speech is basically an extension of property rights. You didn't violate anyones right just by saying something controversial, so they can't punish you for it. And you can run your own blog or hope a newspaper will publish what you write. But imagine there was government legislation giving a "right" for people to have something published in the newspapers against the will of the newspapers. That would violate the rights of the newspapers. That would be a positive right: "Everyone has the right to have their writings published in big newspapers." for instance. Freedom of speech doesn't mean others should provide the paper, bandwidth and so on. You have to provide that stuff yourself and/or in corporate with others.
bitwize 17y ago
Positive rights are obligations on society to give you stuff. Negative rights are obligations on society to not interfere with you doing something. Freedom of speech, of religion, all forms of freedom of creed and expression are negative rights: it is incumbent upon society to not interfere with you doing these things as you please (within limits that are not harmful to others). Even the right to keep and bear arms (USA) is a negative right: it constitutes an obligation on the government not to take your guns away, not access to free guns.
- joubert 17y ago
  Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status?
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status? Nope - you'd be paying taxes even if certain religious structures had no tax-preferences. More to the point, you're not paying taxes to the religions. If you've got a beef with paying taxes, it's with the folks who collect and spend tax money, not with folks/groups who don't pay it.
    - joubert 17y ago
      My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt. and I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt, Your taxes pay for services received by others who don't pay taxes. Are they enslaving you too? (FWIW, the services that churches receive are at the local level, fire and police mainly.) > I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me. They have less effect than other 501c(3)s, such as Sierra Club. Is SC enslaving you? Yes, church members may try to influence things beyond what churches can do. However, you're complaining about churches. I'm perfectly willing to go along with the idea that folks who ask for subsidies from govt are enslaving us, but churches are a small part of that problem. Surely you're not going to argue that there's something with enslaving you but it's okay to enslave me. (That's where you get with "but I don't mind what those other folks want".)

pelle 17y ago

The key to understanding negative or positive rights is that it is seen from the point of view of the government. Freedom of speech is a negative right as it specifically disallows the government from censoring you.

nobody_nowhere 17y ago
Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury. The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'. [edit: many, not all in the bill of rights]
- steamer25 17y ago
  I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government. Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
- maw 17y ago
  I guess you could look at the right to a trial by jury as the right to be not tried by a single person. Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B61FB55/ http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more. But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.
  - gort 17y ago
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury (I'm not sure if this is being distributed legally. It's in a collection of his essays called "A Devil's Chaplain".)

laut 17y ago

Freedom of speech is basically an extension of property rights. You didn't violate anyones right just by saying something controversial, so they can't punish you for it. And you can run your own blog or hope a newspaper will publish what you write. But imagine there was government legislation giving a "right" for people to have something published in the newspapers against the will of the newspapers. That would violate the rights of the newspapers. That would be a positive right: "Everyone has the right to have their writings published in big newspapers." for instance. Freedom of speech doesn't mean others should provide the paper, bandwidth and so on. You have to provide that stuff yourself and/or in corporate with others.

bitwize 17y ago

Positive rights are obligations on society to give you stuff. Negative rights are obligations on society to not interfere with you doing something. Freedom of speech, of religion, all forms of freedom of creed and expression are negative rights: it is incumbent upon society to not interfere with you doing these things as you please (within limits that are not harmful to others). Even the right to keep and bear arms (USA) is a negative right: it constitutes an obligation on the government not to take your guns away, not access to free guns.

joubert 17y ago
Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status?
- anamax 17y ago
  > Would you say that religions force us into slavery because of their tax-exempt status? Nope - you'd be paying taxes even if certain religious structures had no tax-preferences. More to the point, you're not paying taxes to the religions. If you've got a beef with paying taxes, it's with the folks who collect and spend tax money, not with folks/groups who don't pay it.
  - joubert 17y ago
    My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt. and I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > My taxes pay for the services they receive from govt, Your taxes pay for services received by others who don't pay taxes. Are they enslaving you too? (FWIW, the services that churches receive are at the local level, fire and police mainly.) > I would say that they influence too much of public policy making which in turn affects me. They have less effect than other 501c(3)s, such as Sierra Club. Is SC enslaving you? Yes, church members may try to influence things beyond what churches can do. However, you're complaining about churches. I'm perfectly willing to go along with the idea that folks who ask for subsidies from govt are enslaving us, but churches are a small part of that problem. Surely you're not going to argue that there's something with enslaving you but it's okay to enslave me. (That's where you get with "but I don't mind what those other folks want".)