A questionable premise?

[Jamie123]

http://www.lds.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=406&stc=1&d=1273491239

When people say this, I think they often mean: "Where your rights conflict with mine, mine take precedence". I've recently been trawling the Internet for opinions on the McAlpine incident (http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/31905-preacher-uk-arrested-preaching-against-homosexuality.html) and I've noticed this phrase used more than once. Does person A's right not to be offended override person B's right to free speech? Or is it the other way around?

I can think of a lot of other places where this kind of argument is used:

* People who support rape victims say accusers have a right to justice. ("Women don't lie about rape! Victims should be taken at their word!") But men who claim they've been falsely accused would also claim the right to be heard.

* Pro-choicers claim women have a right to do as they please with their own bodies. Pro-lifers claim that unborn children (including cell-clusters just a few hours old) have a right to life.

* News of the World readers believe they have a right to know where convicted pedophiles are living. Others claim that children have a right to be protected from released pedophiles who've been forced away from their supervising authorities for fear of vigilantes (slippery-slope argument here, I know!)

Edited May 10, 2010 by Jamie123
I can't spell premise

[not_ashamed]

That's a great question Jamie and I do think that often people believe that their rights take precedence over anothers. I think many times it comes down to ignorance or a feeling that one persons way of thinking is somehow superior to anothers. I think people need to come to an understanding that just because they do not agree doesn't mean the other person does not deserve the same respect or even that the other person is wrong. There is always a way to be fair to both sides and I think people should strive for that.

[rameumptom]

We need to get back to "what is right", rather than "these are my rights". Rights come with responsibility. But too many today want the rights without the responsibility part. They want government to give them rights and benefits, without regard to its effects on society and others.

The Constitution and its Amendments denote our "rights" as American citizens. None of these rights takes anything from anyone else. It is only later interpretations/misinterpretations and legal haranguing that has twisted it all about. A woman's right to her own body, suggests she has no responsibility toward keeping herself chaste until she's ready to have a baby. And yet the same government that allows her to abort a child for any reason, restricts her from putting whatever drugs/etc into her body.

How are we to ever understand the inconsistencies? We are quickly approaching the day when the government takes full responsibility for us, and delegating certain "rights" to us.

Better we lean on the side of God-given liberties and the self-responsibilities that are inherent with those freedoms.

[Dravin]

Does person A's right not to be offended override person B's right to free speech?

I know this is commenting on the specific situation and not the underlying principles, but there is no right to not be offended.

Now to actually address the underlying principles. This is where things get heated, when both sides perceive a right (or actually have that right) that stands at odds to each other. One (and I stress one) of the obstacles to eliminating slavery (before that whole Civil War thing) was that freeing the slaves by fiat was perceived as a violation of property rights, open rebellion was seen as the perfect justification for curtailing that right. This is why initially only slaves from states in rebellion were freed.

More recently what about protections about hiring and housing discrimination? What about my right to do with my property as I please (housing) or to associate with whom I please (hiring)? When rights really are in conflict (or perceived to be so) things do get messy. Ultimately I think there is validity to the argument, when actual rights are in conflict we need to decide where the boundaries are where they concern other people and the government. I think it is something that would need to be handled on a case by case basis.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest mormonmusic]

Ultimately, the power to decide whose rights are more important that others is in the hands of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. They determine whose interests supercede others.

I don't believe they have "rightness" "goodness" or "absolute truth" as their objective. They have constituent groups who put them in their position, and they make decisions based on those group's interests.

Edited May 10, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Jamie123]

...freeing the slaves by fiat was perceived as a violation of property rights.

The zeitgeist builds momentum as it changes. There was a time when Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) was a British colony, where the black majority was exploited by a white imperial power. No one would have then questioned the rightness of that. Eventually the blacks rose against the white regime and took their country back. But the perception that the blacks were still persecuted gave the tyrant Mugabe the support he needed to gain control of the country and practically ruin it.

In Britain sixty years ago homosexuals were officially persecuted by the state. Nowadays they are fully countenanced; no one goes to prison for being gay and it would be illegal to fire someone from their job for practicing homosexuality. However, the idea that gays are a persecuted minority persists, and gay extremists are now demanding immunity from criticism - and those who oppose them (like the hapless Dale McAlpine) are getting arrested.

Again, there was once a "myth" that any woman who said she was raped was telling lies. That myth died some time in the 1980's. It's now replaced by another myth that "women never lie about rape". However, the Millie Tants are still using the old myth as a justification to hack away the legal safeguards protecting innocent men from wrongful conviction.

Everyone wants to push out their rights (or the rights of whichever group you see as "the victims") to wherever they perceive them to be, and don't look at the other side. It's so easy to do - especially if you allow yourself to get angry about what you read in the tabloids.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Jamie123

[Dravin]

Everyone wants to push out their rights (or the rights of whichever group you see as "the victims") to wherever they perceive them to be, and don't look at the other side. It's so easy to do - especially if you allow yourself to get angry about what you read in the tabloids.

Yep. Caricature of other's opinions and positions combined with 'righteous' anger and a think of the X attitude are a classic force behind (IMHO) a host of bad ideas. Note I wasn't saying the position is always valid or that every claim of it was true when I said I think there is validity to the argument. The kernel of it has validity though the application can be flawed, that at some point if rights conflict we've got to figure out the boundaries of those rights. For instance it has been determined that freedom of speech does not apply to death threats and yelling fire in a crowded theater*.

P.S. I hope you weren't thinking I was taking issue with your hypotheticals/examples I was just stressing that when my 'right' meets your 'right' things can get ugly. Slavery and discrimination I suppose are weighted topics but they are what came to mind first, I wasn't trying to insinuate any moral equivalence in any arguments.

*Is it any more legal to yell it in an empty or not crowded theater? The example given is always crowded.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Dravin