Comments on: A Statist View of Rights http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html Dispatches from a Small Business Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:52:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Rob http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8332 Rob Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:25:38 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8332 <p>Great post, once again !</p> <p>Well, if you can't go to Whistler and you end up in Vail, CO instead (towards the end of feb/beginning of march), then send me an e-mail. I'd like to buy you a beer and chat !!!<br /> </p> Great post, once again !

Well, if you can’t go to Whistler and you end up in Vail, CO instead (towards the end of feb/beginning of march), then send me an e-mail. I’d like to buy you a beer and chat !!!

]]> By: Max Lybbert http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8331 Max Lybbert Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:20:48 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8331 <p>/* Seems this issue is not truly free-speech, but whether public funds should be used in this case.<br /> */</p> <p>No, the issue is the free speech. In the US, it's actually possible for a law to be invalid for being Unconstitutional. This judge's reasoning implies that's no longer the case in Canada. "The defendant claims the law does not protect his free speech rights under the Constitution, but as the law is the law, I rule anything not protected by it is clearly not free speech."</p> <p>/* A legal system that permits a "hot-coffee" lawsuit is not the glass house from which to throw rocks.<br /> */</p> <p>AFAICT, Canada permits people to file lawsuits as easily as the US. Whether those lawsuits are successful is another matter.</p> <p>/* (Let's ignore legal torture for the moment. Yes, I'm assuming the posters are Voting US Citizens)<br /> */</p> <p>So once it's legal it's moral? The big debate here is that (1) torture is banned by federal law (the Constitution bans "cruel and unusual punishment," but the claims about the CIA hve nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with questioning), (2) various government agencies have been accused of X, Y, and Z, so (3) are X, Y, and Z torture -- and therefore illegall -- or are X, Y, and Z not quite torture -- and even if they aren't torture, should they be banned?</p> <p>I don't think I've ever heard any suggestion that there's some category of legal torture.</p> /* Seems this issue is not truly free-speech, but whether public funds should be used in this case.
*/

No, the issue is the free speech. In the US, it’s actually possible for a law to be invalid for being Unconstitutional. This judge’s reasoning implies that’s no longer the case in Canada. “The defendant claims the law does not protect his free speech rights under the Constitution, but as the law is the law, I rule anything not protected by it is clearly not free speech.”

/* A legal system that permits a “hot-coffee” lawsuit is not the glass house from which to throw rocks.
*/

AFAICT, Canada permits people to file lawsuits as easily as the US. Whether those lawsuits are successful is another matter.

/* (Let’s ignore legal torture for the moment. Yes, I’m assuming the posters are Voting US Citizens)
*/

So once it’s legal it’s moral? The big debate here is that (1) torture is banned by federal law (the Constitution bans “cruel and unusual punishment,” but the claims about the CIA hve nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with questioning), (2) various government agencies have been accused of X, Y, and Z, so (3) are X, Y, and Z torture — and therefore illegall — or are X, Y, and Z not quite torture — and even if they aren’t torture, should they be banned?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard any suggestion that there’s some category of legal torture.

]]> By: Moron Pundit http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8330 Moron Pundit Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:15:14 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8330 <p>Whenever I get that itch telling me to get out of the U.S. while the getting is good, stories like these remind me that there is still nowhere on earth even remotely as good as here. </p> <p>That becomes a more depressing statement yearly.</p> Whenever I get that itch telling me to get out of the U.S. while the getting is good, stories like these remind me that there is still nowhere on earth even remotely as good as here.

That becomes a more depressing statement yearly.

]]> By: Allan Clark http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8329 Allan Clark Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:57:46 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8329 <p>Fromm posted pretty harsh free-speech; Warman contested. It's as destructive to society as if Fromm posted "Niggers should die" or "Americans lack class and education". Both are ridiculous in their notion, but how much right do I have to say it? I have every right, but a standing of authority changes this. There's a grey between "Americans are dumb" to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and we'll always disagree on that. If truly Fromm's comments are injury to a class of people, as much as "Fags should die", then it might be hate-speech. Seems Warman contested successfully.</p> <p>Seems this issue is not truly free-speech, but whether public funds should be used in this case. To convert a debate regarding misuse of public funds into a free-speech debate seems a bit sensational; such belongs on the FOX network, not a learned discussion amongst intellectuals.</p> <p>Canada's legal system retains an effective means of punishing frivolous lawsuits; feel free to post your response as a legal action.</p> <p>A legal system that permits a "hot-coffee" lawsuit is not the glass house from which to throw rocks.<br /> (Let's ignore legal torture for the moment. Yes, I'm assuming the posters are Voting US Citizens)</p> <p>I Am Canadian<br /> (RMC -- VVV -- DFTT)</p> Fromm posted pretty harsh free-speech; Warman contested. It’s as destructive to society as if Fromm posted “Niggers should die” or “Americans lack class and education”. Both are ridiculous in their notion, but how much right do I have to say it? I have every right, but a standing of authority changes this. There’s a grey between “Americans are dumb” to shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and we’ll always disagree on that. If truly Fromm’s comments are injury to a class of people, as much as “Fags should die”, then it might be hate-speech. Seems Warman contested successfully.

Seems this issue is not truly free-speech, but whether public funds should be used in this case. To convert a debate regarding misuse of public funds into a free-speech debate seems a bit sensational; such belongs on the FOX network, not a learned discussion amongst intellectuals.

Canada’s legal system retains an effective means of punishing frivolous lawsuits; feel free to post your response as a legal action.

A legal system that permits a “hot-coffee” lawsuit is not the glass house from which to throw rocks.
(Let’s ignore legal torture for the moment. Yes, I’m assuming the posters are Voting US Citizens)

I Am Canadian
(RMC — VVV — DFTT)

]]> By: Bunty http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8328 Bunty Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:48:51 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8328 <p>Spinning more ironies or just plain fear ?</p> <p>Some 30 verses from the Bible were stricken as hate speech by the Canadian Human Rights in the Jessica Beaumont case. The question of Freedom of Speech arose which was also stricken as a defense as "That is an American Principle".</p> <p>Poor Canucks - they once stood tall.<br /> </p> Spinning more ironies or just plain fear ?

Some 30 verses from the Bible were stricken as hate speech by the Canadian Human Rights in the Jessica Beaumont case. The question of Freedom of Speech arose which was also stricken as a defense as “That is an American Principle”.

Poor Canucks – they once stood tall.

]]> By: Bunty http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8327 Bunty Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:48:47 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8327 <p>Spinning more ironies or just plain fear ?</p> <p>Some 30 verses from the Bible were stricken as hate speech by the Canadian Human Rights in the Jessica Beaumont case. The question of Freedom of Speech arose which was also stricken as a defense as "That is an American Principle".</p> <p>Poor Canucks - they once stood tall.<br /> </p> Spinning more ironies or just plain fear ?

Some 30 verses from the Bible were stricken as hate speech by the Canadian Human Rights in the Jessica Beaumont case. The question of Freedom of Speech arose which was also stricken as a defense as “That is an American Principle”.

Poor Canucks – they once stood tall.

]]> By: Bunty http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8326 Bunty Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:47:55 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8326 <p>Spinning more ironies or just plain fear ?</p> <p>Some 30 verses from the Bible were stricken as hate speech by the Canadian Human Rights in the Jessica Beaumont case. The question of Freedom of Speech arose which was also stricken as a defense as "That is an American Principle".</p> <p>Poor Canucks - they once stood tall.<br /> </p> Spinning more ironies or just plain fear ?

Some 30 verses from the Bible were stricken as hate speech by the Canadian Human Rights in the Jessica Beaumont case. The question of Freedom of Speech arose which was also stricken as a defense as “That is an American Principle”.

Poor Canucks – they once stood tall.

]]> By: terrence http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8325 terrence Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:47:50 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8325 <p>And, by not passing through the Vancouver airport on your way to Whistler, you greatly reduce your chance of being tasered (and possibly killed). But, I suppose speaking English may help in that regard, too. But be verryy careful about what you say! <br /> </p> And, by not passing through the Vancouver airport on your way to Whistler, you greatly reduce your chance of being tasered (and possibly killed). But, I suppose speaking English may help in that regard, too. But be verryy careful about what you say!

]]> By: CRC http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8324 CRC Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:49:04 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8324 <p>"Rights are defined instead by the state and are whatever is reflected in current law. In this decision, but fortunately not in the US, the law by definition can't be wrong..."</p> <p>Sadly this philosophy is becoming fashionable in the U.S.</p> “Rights are defined instead by the state and are whatever is reflected in current law. In this decision, but fortunately not in the US, the law by definition can’t be wrong…”

Sadly this philosophy is becoming fashionable in the U.S.

]]> By: CRC http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/11/a-statist-view.html/comment-page-1#comment-8323 CRC Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:46:44 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/11/a-statist-view.html #comment-8323 <p>"Rights are defined instead by the state and are whatever is reflected in current law. In this decision, but fortunately not in the US, the law by definition can't be wrong..."</p> <p>Sadly this very philosophy is becoming fashionable in the U.S. too.</p> “Rights are defined instead by the state and are whatever is reflected in current law. In this decision, but fortunately not in the US, the law by definition can’t be wrong…”

Sadly this very philosophy is becoming fashionable in the U.S. too.

]]>