[ExI] Transparent Society problem HELP - LAWYER

[William Flynn Wallace]

Don't we have a lawyer around?  Several things:  people have the right not
to be harassed, sexually or otherwise.  It could be considered verbal
assault.  A person is not free to say just anything, the old standard being
yelling FIRE in a movie theater.  So free speech is not entirely free.  You
and your sign can be removed as a public nuisance, distracting traffic, etc.

But outside those things, no, no right not to be offended, when it is
always the case that the person can escape seeing or hearing whatever it is
they are offended by. If you don't like the speaker, don't go to the
speech.  Unfortunately for us liberals, the ultra liberal crowd makes big
noises about offending.

In fact, I just bought a book co-authored by Jonathan Haidt, called The
Coddling of the American Mind, on just this subject.

The problem is that our elhi education is already way too politically
correct, such as omitting details about George Washington and others that
puts them in a bad light.  People don't want children to know those things
and so textbook companies are forced to have authors write only good
stuff.  Texas is a really bad example of censorship.

Two more things:  1 - free speech incl. the right to dissent, and 2 - a
society oriented towards individual effort and not emphasizing not sticking
out from the crowd (a la Far East societies).  These two things appear to
me to be the reasons we are the innovators on this planet and not some
countries where they are just as smart as we are but lack those two things.

bill w

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:30 PM BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 18:32, spike wrote:
> > In the USA, the rights of the people are spelled out in the constitution;
> > there is no need to balance those against anything.  Legally those rights
> > win in the long run.
> >
> > I have heard the argument that people have the right to not be harassed,
> > which is used against people who go onto college campuses with posters of
> > aborted fetuses and crap like that, but from what I understand, that
> kind of
> > thing is first amendment protected speech.  If it is a public university
> and
> > the poster child gets assaulted (a common consequence) then the one doing
> > the assaulting is guilty, the poster child is innocent.
> >
> > Conclusion: Americans do not have the right to not be offended.  I can't
> > find that one anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
> >
> > <snip>
> > Fun example: local high school principal, young, energetic, up and
> coming,
> > fast riser, highly regarded, considered the likely next superintendent.
> The
> > day after the 2016 election, the students staged a walkout, assembled on
> the
> > field.  He went out there with a bullhorn and demonstrated solidarity
> with
> > them by shouting over the bullhorn FUCK DONALD TRUMP to massive cheers.
> > Someone recorded it on her cell phone, posted it to FaceBook within
> minutes,
> > showed up on mainstream news within the hour, his career was a smoldering
> > ruin by the end of the day.  For the next month, if one entered into
> Google
> > the name of our town, that video was the first five hits.  Of course no
> one
> > would hire him.  His LinkIn page is silent.  We don't know where he went.
> >
> > Object lesson: this is the age of super-accountability.
> >
>
>
> Look up 'chilling effect'.
> Definition -
> In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or
> discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights
> by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often
> described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US
> constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused
> by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a
> court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause
> people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech
> or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions.
> Outside the legal context in common usage; any coercion or threat of
> coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a
> group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be
> statistically measured or be plainly observed.
> --------
>
> At private parties or discussions everyone carries a smartphone and is
> continually playing with it.
> Of course nowadays video recording does not require something as
> conspicuous as a camera or smartphone.
> So not only are all the warnings about posting dangerous opinions on
> Facepalm coming true, but even the uttering of unpopular opinions is
> becoming a very risky action.
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181115/2b25ece8/attachment.html>