How much would you spend on your rights?

[Yellow]

This is an activity given to Social Studies students. I thought we might be able to have some fun with it.

Imagine you had these ten rights available to purchase and $2000 to spend. How much would you spend on each right and why?

1. The right to free speech.

2. The right to petition the government.

3. The right to vote.

4. Freedom of/from religion.

5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

6. The right to bear arms.

7. The right to trial by a jury of your peers.

8. The right to confront your accuser.

9. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

10. Freedom of the press.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Easy answer: $200 each, but if you want to know which I prioritize then:

1. The right to free speech. $500

2. The right to petition the government. $50

3. The right to vote. $100

4. Freedom of/from religion. $450

5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. $200

6. The right to bear arms. $250

7. The right to trial by a jury of your peers. $40

8. The right to confront your accuser. $100

9. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. $60

10. Freedom of the press. $250

 

[Cogwulf]

First of all I'd kill the person selling them

Then in order of what I think is most important to least:

The right to free speech.

The right to trial by a jury of your peers.

The right to vote.

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right to confront your accuser.

Freedom of the press.

The right to petition the government.

The right to bear arms.

Freedom of/from religion.

 

[Yellow]

My response was:

1. The right to free speech. $500

4. Freedom of/from religion. $500

5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. $300

9. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. $200

10. Freedom of the press. $200

2. The right to petition the government. $100

3. The right to vote. $100

8. The right to confront your accuser. $50

7. The right to trial by a jury of your peers. $50

6. The right to bear arms. $0

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

woah woah woah, where's the fifth amendment? The right not to provide witness against yourself.
YouTube- Dont Talk to Police

I think I would spend a lot. Like, not *quite* as much as it took. But a lot. I'm not really sure how to put it into money figures.

For some of the rights, I feel like I would become a guerrilla fighter for.


1. The right to free speech. GUERRILLA

2. The right to petition the government. *meh*, compared to the others it doesn't seem that important

3. The right to vote. GUERRILLA

4. Freedom of/from religion. GUERRILLA

5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. If a lack of this right was abused, GUERRILLA

6. The right to bear arms. GUERRILLA

7. The right to trial by a jury of your peers. If a lack of this right was abused, GUERRILLA

8. The right to confront your accuser. If a lack of this right was abused, GUERRILLA

9. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. If a lack of this right was abused, GUERRILLA

10. Freedom of the press. (Is the same as #1? GUERRILLA.)

11. Not provide witness to oneself. If a lack of this right was abused (like, forced interrogation), GUERRILLA


Clearly, I am an angry libertarian.

I also recognize that some of these rights (Speech, Search & Seizure, Bear Arms) have been partially restricted in the United States. I resent it, but I do not think it is enough to go to war over yet.

Yet.

 

[Cogwulf]

The freedom of/from religion doesn't seem very important to me, mostly because you can force a person to go to church, but you can't force that person to believe or disbelieve anything, similar the horse to water saying. And as long as the right to free speech is still held removing freedom of religion would be incredibly difficult.

 

[Yellow]

woah woah woah, where's the fifth amendment? The right not to provide witness against yourself.

I think I would spend a lot. Like, not *quite* as much as it took. But a lot. I'm not really sure how to put it into money figures.

For some of the rights, I feel like I would become a guerrilla fighter for.

Cheater.

And this is an old assignment and I don't even know who wrote it... maybe the fifth amendment didn't rank as high as the others with its originator. I know I really don't care about it. If I'm already in so much trouble that answering court questions will make it worse, I'm prolly gonna lie.

 

[Kidege]

All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights.

Rights can't be bought or sold, and it upsets me a bit to think anyone would think of buying or selling them.

I'm particularly fond of these three:

9. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

4. Freedom of/from religion.

5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.



I'd group 1. The right to free speech., with 10. Freedom of the press. They refer to the sake kind of freedom: that of expressing oneself. In the human rights declaration the right of expression goes with the right to seek information, which I love.

2. The right to petition the government. and 3. The right to vote. could be grouped as specific political rights... I'd say they're linked to the right of participating in the govt.

7. The right to trial by a jury of your peers. and 8. The right to confront your accuser are, I guess, part of the right to recognition before the law.

And I have no idea of how come this is a right:

6. The right to bear arms.

I mean, I've heard it was intended as a safety in order to depose a bad govt, but come on... I mean, in my country we have the constitutional right to depose a bad govt, but not the right to bear arms... Drug dealers are often jailed for carrying weapons without a permit.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I realise this is more a civics lesson, but I'd be interested to see how much we might spend on certain other rights that we think we have and yet never officially had. I'm not referring to RT's list of things being infringed upon (I don't quite get the inclusion of speech) but something like the right to privacy (which is not guaranteed anywhere).

Also right to die.

Right to lifestyle (in which I consider various forms of marraige that isn't 1 man 1 woman).

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

(I don't quite get the inclusion of speech)

YouTube- Its Illegal to say "I Want to Kill the President"
heh okay, I'm trying to find proof that it's illegal to say (notice my quotes) "I want to kill the president of the United States" and it might not actually be an inclusion.
/edit/: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=9734

But another example is how protesters are often delegate to "Free Speech Zones" around large events. WTF? The whole United States is a Free-Speech Zone. U.S. Courts are just douchebags.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

 

[Kidege]

Like the funny rights that are in my country's laws but no one gets?

Right to access to information, right to protection of personal data, right to intimacy -meant as privacy-, right to protection from abuse of public power.

They just went and changed the state constitution in 16 states and now we all have the "right to life from its conception", which sounds awful and is ridiculous, and just last week a lady was in jail because she had a spontaneous abortion, so she was taken from the hospital and thrown into a cell, and threatened with 20 years of prison for homicide. They had no proof so she was released.

.
.
.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Kidege, what country are you from?

 

[EditorOne]

"The freedom of/from religion doesn't seem very important to me, mostly because you can force a person to go to church, but you can't force that person to believe or disbelieve anything, similar the horse to water saying. And as long as the right to free speech is still held removing freedom of religion would be incredibly difficult. "

True enough, but what the right really is: No government that is controlled by a religion. Even in an age where we see what a religion-owned government means in some Islamic states, we seem to remain somewhat forgetful of what governments owned by the Catholic or Protestant religions did in Europe not all that long ago. When a government owned by a religion confiscates your house because you're of a different religion, you really really really need "freedom of religion" because it's not an issue of belief, it's an issue of property and, in some cases, survival.

​

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

heh okay, I'm trying to find proof that it's illegal to say (notice my quotes) "I want to kill the president of the United States" and it might not actually be an inclusion.


But another example is how protesters are often delegate to "Free Speech Zones" around large events. WTF? The whole United States is a Free-Speech Zone. U.S. Courts are just douchebags.

Well the Free Speech Zones were ridiculous. Did the Supreme Court ever hear a case about those? I wonder if it would have passed, if it did, we can certainly discount the court as any protector of freedoms once and for all.

Freedom of speech however was never meant as an absolute. You know, the fire in a crowded movie house thing. Threats aren't allowed either nor is inciting a riot. I can understand those. No right is an absolute. Hell, certain religious practices could get you arrested. Just get caught practicing rastafarianism's practice to get closer to god.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

For myself there are no rights, only privileges.
I don't like the idea of expecting rights, the world doesn’t owe me anything, so what right have I to expect these rights protected on my behalf? None.

Go ahead, deny me freedom of speech, I'll speak anyway.
I'll make it my privilege, I'll earn it, by defying any who would stop me.
_________________________________________________________________

*takes the $2000, sets it on fire, and gives the results-collector the finger*
I have no right to do this, but I still do, because it's my Privilege.
Try & stop me, but first know this: I'm expecting you to try

6. The right to bear arms.

Misanthropy par excellence.
The right to bear arms does not necessitate the required responsibility.
IMO anyone who thinks guns are cool or fun while intending to own one, needs to be shot, not killed, just taught to respect what a gun is, and what it's not.

 

[sniktawekim]

This is an activity given to Social Studies students. I thought we might be able to have some fun with it.

Imagine you had these ten rights available to purchase and $2000 to spend. How much would you spend on each right and why?

1. The right to free speech.

2. The right to petition the government.

3. The right to vote.

4. Freedom of/from religion.

5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

6. The right to bear arms.

7. The right to trial by a jury of your peers.

8. The right to confront your accuser.

9. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

10. Freedom of the press.

i wouldnt spend money for them. i would kill/die for them.

 

[sniktawekim]

For myself there are no rights, only privileges.
I don't like the idea of expecting rights, the world doesn’t owe me anything, so what right have I to expect these rights protected on my behalf? None.
.

i think you and i think the same thing, but with a different taste in wording.
when i say right, i dont mean things that people have to give to me.
i mean things that people cant take away from me.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

The right to vote was given to you.

It can also be taken away.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Cog's reply reminded me of Professor Bernardo de la Paz. (From Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress")

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

The right to bear arms can also be taken away but it would lead to a bloody mess in the undertaking.

 

[Cavallier]

Imagine you had these ten rights available to purchase and $2000 to spend. How much would you spend on each right and why?

1. The right to free speech. $400 Very important to me. I'd give a lot for this.

2. The right to petition the government. $100 This is one of the ways we can make the government take notice of what the people it governs wants. So I'll give about $100 for it.

3. The right to vote. $300 While I think the system is flawed I think that the ability to vote it important.

4. Freedom of/from religion. $300 I've read way too much literature from and about 1400-1600ce in Europe to not pay good money for this.

5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. $100 This is close enough to a privacy issue for me.

6. The right to bear arms. $0 Don't give a rats hind quarters. I don't see this as meaning a person can't own a gun anyway. I just think that a person should pass a psychological and capability/responsibility exam first. Require that people take classes and then pass out permits. I like how Canada makes it legal for hunting rifles but handguns are outlawed. I see no reason for people to have handguns. If you are an avid hunter or spend a lot of time out in the bush, you pass all the psychological exams, and take the class and get the permit...fine. Have a rifle but handguns are needless.*

7. The right to trial by a jury of your peers. $50 Just not as important to me as some of the others. Although I do worry about lynch mobs...

8. The right to confront your accuser. $50 Again, just not as important as some of the others but...Well, it would be nice to point the finger back I suppose.

9. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. $400 What constitutes as "cruel" and "unusual"? For me it equates to torture and frankly I'd give a lot to make sure our government can't torture people.

10. Freedom of the press. $300 This ranks up there with freedom of speech for me.

*I've wondered how it would be if we took all the guns and replaced them with swords again. It's personal. You can shoot somebody from far away but to kill with a sword you have to be close enough to the person to see their eyes and feel the spray of blood when you kill them. I think that would stop a lot of people from killing. While there would be more amputations there probably wouldn't be nearly as many deaths.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

My old signature, and probably my favorite.

 

[Cogwulf]

I like how Canada makes it legal for hunting rifles but handguns are outlawed. I see no reason for people to have handguns. If you are an avid hunter or spend a lot of time out in the bush, you pass all the psychological exams, and take the class and get the permit...fine. Have a rifle but handguns are needless.

I think the main advantage of that law is that rifles couldn't feasibly be used in most gun crimes. It's extremely difficult to conceal them and they'd take much longer to draw and be ready to fire

 

[SEPKA]

1. Free speech: $500 it is super important for me, I think that is also because I lived in a communist country for too long and feel really suppressed.
2. Petition: $50, I can just talk to the government officer, and if that does not work I can always assassinate the whole government and take over it.
3. Vote: $0, not really that important, I can always manipulate the mass into submitting to my opinion.
4. Freedom from religion: $0, since I already buy #1, this is no longer necessary.
5. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure: $400, I want to be free, so this is very important, but privacy is not much of a problem because what I want to hide is mostly on my computer, and I can always use stegography/cryptography to defence against such search.
6. Bear arm: $0, I can always make some good weapon that bypass the legal definition of "arm" so this is not necessary.
7. Trail by jury of your peer: $150, but I think I will just escape the country.
8. Confront your accuser: $100, same as above, and I might just assassinate the accuser if that is an deliberate vicious attempt to bring me down.
9. Free from cruel and unusual punishment: $200, just in case I get captured while trying to escape.
10. Freedom of press: $500, important to manipulate the mass, linked to #1 and #2 and #3 so this is required.
11. Right to take over the world: $100, since I still got money left and this would come in handy if I ever got a powerful army of robot.

 

[Cavallier]

I think the main advantage of that law is that rifles couldn't feasibly be used in most gun crimes. It's extremely difficult to conceal them and they'd take much longer to draw and be ready to fire

Agreed. When I lived in Alaska it was unheard of for somebody to not have a rifle in my area. But then again, it was unusual for somebody to have a handgun.

 

[Yellow]

I want to bump this 7.5 year-old topic to get more answers. Actually, I think my answers have changed a bit over the years as well.

Mods, feel free to split the thread if this is too far to be grave-digging,

 

[Shieru]

this is interesting, i'm glad you exhumed this topic ^^

_________

So..

1. The right to free speech/Freedom of the press. $500 - these are basically the same thing, but probably most important to me. places like INTPf would likely be shut down without this one D:

2. Freedom of/from religion. $500 - because it's bad enough religious zealots show up at my door.. i'd rather not be obligated to agree with them. this one's highly related to the previous one as well. without freedom of belief there can't be free exchange of thought.

3. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. $300 - i don't like random people in my house, and would probably go catatonic if they took my computer. they better have a damn good reason for violating my space

4. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. $200 - this one's pretty self-explanatory methinks. rather not be inappropriately touched against my will, let alone tortured >.<

5. The right to trial by a jury of your peers. $100 - not that i generally trust people to deduce reality correctly.. but if i had to be tried for something, especially something i was innocent of, i'd rather have more than one opinion on the matter.

6. The right to petition the government. $100 - because we should at least be able to complain.

7. The right to vote. $100 - i've thought for a while that this one doesn't actually matter that much. the way the electoral college is set up makes things seem kinda futile :P but i think the spirit of it 's still important.

8. The right to bear arms. $100 - this one helps prevent complete tyranny in the event that Trump an overzealous leader attempts to control the population with military forces.

9. The right to confront your accuser. $100 - i'm not into conflict. but if this extends to the right to hire a lawyer, then it'd be important. let the extroverts with a degree in the technical art of accusation handle it!

 

[Reluctantly]

I guess I don't understand putting a dollar sign to them. Does it mean I'm buying a better quality of that particular thing?

 

[Yellow]

3. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. $300 - i don't like random people in my house, and would probably go catatonic if they took my computer. they better have a damn good reason for violating my space

4. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. $200 - this one's pretty self-explanatory methinks. rather not be inappropriately touched against my will, let alone tortured >.<

I guess this brings me to ask why you place your right to your possessions/privacy over your right to not be inhumanely detained/tortured.

I guess I don't understand putting a dollar sign to them. Does it mean I'm buying a better quality of that particular thing?

I was married to a social studies teacher when I made my OP. It was probably an assignment for his students in US Civics. I guess it provides an objective measurement for a group of people to compare the importance of each right from their differing points of view.

 

[Shieru]

I guess this brings me to ask why you place your right to your possessions/privacy over your right to not be inhumanely detained/tortured.

i think these are closely related in reality, but i made that choice in order to reflect my principles. privacy means a whole lot to me, as does personal freedom. probably partially because most my life i was deprived of those things :P i wouldn't want to be tortured, but i think having my privacy violated and/or having to be confronted with aggressive interrogation would be just as bad in a way.

i think, being INTP, i tend to value what's internally relevant to me above external circumstances. of course in reality internal well being has a lot to do with allowance from the environment. but i tend to be rather detached from the physical dimension by default, so if i can retain my individuality (which extends into virtual space, imo) then what's happening objectively isn't that important.

that's prolly the reason i can sit in my pjs in a room that looks like a tornado hit it, starving, with no money in the bank and an overdue list of things to do, and be completely content spending days philosophizing on various forums

 

[Seteleechete]

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment: 1000
Because this is the one that scares me and I don't like being afraid. Especially if "unusual" punishments include lobotomy/drugs based/brainwashing/torture ones. I considered placing all 2000 on this but placing on other things a bit might be more effective indirectly. Not sure.

Freedom from religion: 300
Much the same reasons as above, religion makes people justify the stupidest things.

Freedom of speech/press(neat trick): 500

Self-explanatory for an intp. but in general needed to protect a functioning society as well.

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure: 100

Don't want my things arbitrarily taken/generally rule of law being useful.

Right to petition the government: 100

Public outrage via free speech is probably more effective but having open channels is also fairly important.

 

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

For myself there are no rights, only privileges.
I don't like the idea of expecting rights, the world doesn’t owe me anything, so what right have I to expect these rights protected on my behalf? None.

Go ahead, deny me freedom of speech, I'll speak anyway.
I'll make it my privilege, I'll earn it, by defying any who would stop me.
_________________________________________________________________

*takes the $2000, sets it on fire, and gives the results-collector the finger*
I have no right to do this, but I still do, because it's my Privilege.
Try & stop me, but first know this: I'm expecting you to try


Misanthropy par excellence.
The right to bear arms does not necessitate the required responsibility.
IMO anyone who thinks guns are cool or fun while intending to own one, needs to be shot, not killed, just taught to respect what a gun is, and what it's not.

Wow haha man I had some fire in me back then

My older more level headed answer would be to keep the $2000 (I pay more bills these days) and tell the person who tried to sell me a concept to fuck off because how are they going to protect any of my rights for worthwhile amount of time for a mere two grand?

 

[Rixus]

Can I keep the $2k for PC upgrades? If not, then I guess I'll have to answer. And by the way, Yellow, I first saw this last night when I quickly checked my social medias etc before bed, and ended up laying awake for an hour contemplating this. So thank you for that. Anyway, here's a summary of my pondering:

The right to vote – $400 – While I do question why people vote in the ways that they do and believe most people vote on issues that they unfortunately know little about, without the right to vote the government would be unaccountable and we would be under tyranny.

The right to trial by a jury of your peers - $350 – I’m going to amend this slightly here to the right to a fair trial. Although I have never been on trial, I don’t trust my peers at all as it comes down to who’s lawyer can successfully sway the opinion of the jury. But, everyone deserves a fair trial. For if it cannot be proven fairly, how else can we prosecute?

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure - $300 – I’m putting this a little below a fair trial. I don’t agree with unwarranted searches or seizures, but it does come down to the same thing as having a fair and reasonable justice and policing system. Although people like to complain greatly about the government spying on them, this in itself doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I’m far too boring a person for them to have any interest in me and doubt I break any laws that would concern anyone.

Freedom of/from religion – $300 – I had to stop and think about this for a moment. Everyone dislikes those preachers who show up at their door; but as issues go it doesn’t affect my life greatly. I do not fully understand why people do, but of course, if they find life easier when they believe in such things they should be free to do so as long as those beliefs are not causing harm to anyone else. And there in lies the problem – we can look back into our own history when people did not have freedom to not practice religion and see churches will unreasonable power and heresy being a capital offence. We see in the middle east what happens when people do not have this freedom and can agree it is, in fact, vitally important.

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment – $250 – I believe this important. I don’t fear my own safety, although I can think of some cruel and unusual punishments that are quite creative that I would not like to undergo. I sometimes attempt to argue their validity in order to argue with a work colleague, but that is all in the name of fun, really. My last suggestion was to use sensory deprivation chambers for sentences – a 6 month sentence in sensory deprivation while being fed intravenously would be much harsher than several years in prison. But of course, I don’t believe that at all. It’s a simple fact that severe punishment is highly ineffective at both rehabilitation and information extraction. All it does is breed resentment for the hand that dealt the punishment. Harsh sentences and capital punishments may make the general public feel like justice has been served, but it does not discourage crime or re-offence and that is really what should be aimed towards.

The right to free speech – $250 This one is interesting. Most people put this at the top of their list. Yes, the right to air your opinion is a basic right. But we do have limitations on what we can say everywhere we go. Whether it is a Mod in a forum, your boss at work, or by law, we do have limitations. And should you be free to incite fear or prejudice? Then we have to decide who decides what constitutes as prejudice? Manipulation is really the most effective tool of control, but who could possibly police this fairly?

Freedom of the press – $100 - I’m putting this lower freedom of public speech and keeping it separate. The press has an obligation to inform the public about the truth. But in my opinion, they seem to be interested in selling a story rather than telling a story. And we end up with celebrity stalking and attempts to glorify or horrify. This is not always a good thing, and they have an enormous amount of power over the general public and over democracy.

The right to petition the government - $50 – While we can look back at things like the Chartism Riots and agree that it is necessary for the public to petition the government with legitimate misgivings or concerns, democracy and free speech are generally far more effective at this.

The right to confront your accuser - $0. As long as a fair trial is in place, I do not feel the need to confront my accusers (not that I have ever been accused of a serious crime). Cross examining your own victims seems like a cruel and unusual psychological torture in itself.

The right to bear arms s - $0. We haven’t had the right to bear arms for over twenty years here. While I’m aware many people will fundamentally disagree with me, I don’t believe my personal freedoms or safety are compromised in any way by not having the ability to bear arms.

 

[Yellow]

The right to free speech – $250 This one is interesting. Most people put this at the top of their list. Yes, the right to air your opinion is a basic right. But we do have limitations on what we can say everywhere we go. Whether it is a Mod in a forum, your boss at work, or by law, we do have limitations. And should you be free to incite fear or prejudice? Then we have to decide who decides what constitutes as prejudice? Manipulation is really the most effective tool of control, but who could possibly police this fairly?

These are good points. Personally, I value freedom of speech over freedom from offence, but it's the direction a lot of people seem to want to move in. I'm not suggesting that you're a proponent of "safe spaces", but this got me thinking about it.

Freedom of the press – $100 - I’m putting this lower freedom of public speech and keeping it separate. The press has an obligation to inform the public about the truth. But in my opinion, they seem to be interested in selling a story rather than telling a story. And we end up with celebrity stalking and attempts to glorify or horrify. This is not always a good thing, and they have an enormous amount of power over the general public and over democracy.

I think this illustrates cultural differences pretty well. The Press was supposed to be the unofficial, 4th branch of the US federal government. The Press has become as partisan and corrupt as any other high-level political figures as a result of being owned/controlled by just a few for-profit people/entities.

 

[Rixus]

These are good points. Personally, I value freedom of speech over freedom from offence, but it's the direction a lot of people seem to want to move in. I'm not suggesting that you're a proponent of "safe spaces", but this got me thinking about it.

While everyone should be free from violence and discrimination (to a realistic level), I think freedom from offence is an absurd extreme. People do become far too easily offended by almost anything these days. I saw headline last week that a Walking Dead t-shirt was taken off the shelves at a London store. It displayed Negan's bat, with the words, "eeny meeny miny moe." Apparently, someone complained that had they been an Afro Carribean, they would have been offended. Which is just plain lunacy. No, I don't refer to that direction of forcing the world to walk on egg shells.

But manipulation, inciting violence and so on does have some limits. On the one, it's the same argument as I made for religious freedom - say or do as you please as long no one's getting hurt. On the other hand, if people just stopped and thought about what they hear and if they, quite frankly, grew a pair and stopped getting so offended by everything, it wouldn't be necessary.

I guess I only wonder about this because every time I look in social media, I see both extremes arguing and throwing views back and forth, and neither is really any better than the other.

That's a bit of a tangent, though. By the rightful limitations to freedom of speech, was more thinking about things like obtaining money by deception, slander, Hitler's rally's prior to gaining power, brainwashing of children, even sexual grooming of minors can be done using only words. I don't disagree with the right to express whatever opinion you have (otherwise I wouldn't have applied any value to it), just to use that right to cause harm.

 

[Yellow]

That's a bit of a tangent, though. By the rightful limitations to freedom of speech, was more thinking about things like obtaining money by deception, slander, Hitler's rally's prior to gaining power, brainwashing of children, even sexual grooming of minors can be done using only words. I don't disagree with the right to express whatever opinion you have (otherwise I wouldn't have applied any value to it), just to use that right to cause harm.

hmmm... I've heard this argument, and it does make some sense. Personally, I don't see a problem with hateful and riotous speech being allowed by law. People still choose whether they agree. Hitler, unfortunately, was saying what a lot of people were thinking. If we're to the point of trying to stop hateful rhetoric, then it's safe to assume that it won't take hold with the majority.

The only kind of limit to free speech that doesn't come from the majority comes from the government about the government.

(In child-related cases, parents don't need to break the law, only threaten (or fail to protect) their child's wellbeing... So that becomes reasonably moot (at least in the US))

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

500 $,
for the right to euthanasia at will, no questions asked, no obstructions.

Now what I mean by this is instantaneous, swift disintegration, essentially what constitutes the right to my own life, my own intellectual property inside my brain and my genetic information and my right to erase it completely, thus preventing any future party from accessing my body/mind and/or reviving/cloning or copying me or parts of me.

1500 $,
for the right to do whatever I want on my territory.

I want every patch of ground I purchase and every planet I claim to be rightfully recognised as a separate legal entity sovereign from any other country. I want the whole right to self-governance package and the ability to make my own law on my own territory, similar to what embassies get. Of course I still need nukes to back it up so I shouldn't be prohibited from obtaining any technology or knowledge.

 

[Rixus]

hmmm... I've heard this argument, and it does make some sense. Personally, I don't see a problem with hateful and riotous speech being allowed by law. People still choose whether they agree. Hitler, unfortunately, was saying what a lot of people were thinking. If we're to the point of trying to stop hateful rhetoric, then it's safe to assume that it won't take hold with the majority.

The only kind of limit to free speech that doesn't come from the majority comes from the government about the government.

(In child-related cases, parents don't need to break the law, only threaten (or fail to protect) their child's wellbeing... So that becomes reasonably moot (at least in the US))

I will agree with you on the hateful and riotous speech. And I guess Hitler's Rallies were a poor example - that whole situation was a product of extreme circumstances of the time. And I guess the idea of halting such gatherings does sound like rather tyrannical attitude. I was just thinking of how easily manipulated people can be (which can be a little frightening to see) - but really, as much as I don't trust the majority of people, I wouldn't seek to deny them the ability to make up their own minds.

Things may be different here in the UK; I can't recall the government having ever attempted to silence anyone complaints about them. They don't seem to care all that much.

 

[Yellow]

Blarraun, so you wish that those who would enter, or be born in or on you territory have no rights whatsoever, except that which you would deign to grant? I suppose that still exists in a few patches of the world.

 

[Yellow]

I will agree with you on the hateful and riotous speech. And I guess Hitler's Rallies were a poor example - that whole situation was a product of extreme circumstances of the time. And I guess the idea of halting such gatherings does sound like rather tyrannical attitude. I was just thinking of how easily manipulated people can be (which can be a little frightening to see) - but really, as much as I don't trust the majority of people, I wouldn't seek to deny them the ability to make up their own minds.

Things may be different here in the UK; I can't recall the government having ever attempted to silence anyone complaints about them. They don't seem to care all that much.

I've actually been wondering about information manipulation, and was thinking of starting a thread on it. If people are spoon-fed targeted campaigns through the google bubble, facebook, tumblr, news moguls, etc., can we really claim we have the freedom to vote? Sure, many will attempt to put in the effort to think for themselves, but the most don't know it's even happening, and even the majority of the "informed" minority can be duped by confirmation bias without too much trouble.

 

[Rixus]

I've actually been wondering about information manipulation, and was thinking of starting a thread on it. If people are spoon-fed targeted campaigns through the google bubble, facebook, tumblr, news moguls, etc., can we really claim we have the freedom to vote? Sure, many will attempt to put in the effort to think for themselves, but the most don't know it's even happening, and even the majority of the "informed" minority can be duped by confirmation bias without too much trouble.

I've been thinking about this issue lately also, given recent elections and the social media activity I've seen. It's what prompted me to be wondering about the freedom of speech issue and how it relates - I'm just not very good at explaining 3 hours of thought into a post.

I can't speak for the same activity in the US (though I assume the story would be similar), but part of the reason for the Brexit movement gaining such momentum here was social media. Most people do not fact check the posts they share, they just automatically become outraged and share them. Just two days ago, I tried to correct my brother on his sharing of a request to petition the government to teach British history again in schools as this has apparently ceased "for fear of offending Muslims", which is completely fictitious. But it appeals to the confirmation bias people have on subject. Then there's a few posters who vehemently argue the point, and it gives the illusion that the opinion is more popular then it is.

Which, the power this could have could be a good thing, as it means that because of the internet, people's sole source of information is not just the mainstream media. People can check facts for themselves easily, if they so choose to. It's just unfortunate that most people do not. I'm not necessarily opposed to someone having any opinion, it just bothers me when people blindly follow anything written in there feeds. It's as if seeing their fears in writing makes it real, regardless of the source.

 

[EditorOne]

Just a belated footnote: In the US Bill of Rights, there is no separate "freedom of the press," it's freedom of speech, period. Newspapers and other media have absolutely no separate rights beyond what is available to any individual. I'm making the belated footnote because failure to discern the lack of difference between individuals and media organizations has led some in this country to think they can curtail the media separately.

Also, there are limits on free speech in that uttering known falsehoods to demean an individual is libel/slander and punishable in civil court with damages. Our current President, who has called for more accountability on the part of the media, may be about to find out that accusing a past President of an impeachable offense (illegal ordering of a wiretap on political enemies) is probably going to be considered an impeachable offense in itself, partly because there's no other way to hold a sitting President accountable for his actions other than impeachment and removal.

 

[Architect]

Just a belated footnote: In the US Bill of Rights, there is no separate "freedom of the press," it's freedom of speech, period. Newspapers and other media have absolutely no separate rights beyond what is available to any individual. I'm making the belated footnote because failure to discern the lack of difference between individuals and media organizations has led some in this country to think they can curtail the media separately.

The first amendment to the constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So yes I agree. However a press organization isn't an individual, correct? Do all the rest of the individual rights apply or not apply to the press? In other words, I get your point that "press" and "individual" are seemingly lumped together, but the legal system manages them separately with different application of the law, so it seems that in practice there is a difference.

Freedom of Speech
Specifically we are free to speak without intimidation or coercion from the government, but that doesn't mean you can speak freely - e.g. say whatever you want without consequence as EditorOne noted above.

Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

My understanding is that legally it's a bit of a gray area when determining the difference between expressing your views, and expressing intent to commit a crime. For example, you can legally make a white supremacist web site expressing your views, but if you make specific threats on it you'll get a visit from the gendarme. Some forms of expression are more closely monitored in practice I think, such as making anything vaguely expressing physical action against the POTUS, or having to do with child pornography.

I think that in practice the Duck theory is applied. If it quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

[EditorOne]

And under free speech exceptions, let's not forget "no freedom to shout "fire!" falsely in a crowded theater, where the intent would be to create chaos.

Although we had a slightly different version of that when I was a young men and yippee Abbie Hoffman said that free speech does include the right to shout "Theater!" at a crowded fire .....

 

[Architect]

Fire! Fire! Fire!

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Blarraun, so you wish that those who would enter, or be born in or on you territory have no rights whatsoever, except that which you would deign to grant? I suppose that still exists in a few patches of the world.

Depends. If I only own a big ranch or a house with a garden then I'd probably defer them to the nearest large-scale state. If I was managing a self-sustainable state/polis/planet then I'd think about establishing the citizenship of the newborns, providing them with facilities, protection, resources and inviting them to partake in the economy and the socio-legal system that's built around it or alternatively I could choose to kill/deport everything trying to invade me unless they had an emergency, though I would give a fair warning/legal information in advance.

If I had to manage a planet, then I'd probably act as a final dictator in the relevant decisions and the rest of the tasks would fall on local councils and self-organising people.

 

[Nick85]

Use the $2000 to buy a plane ticket to Ecuador and do whatever I can to undermine the government that tried to take my rights away.