Catcalling Fines

[camberiu]

The court system = the state

This is a non-answer. At what point does my freedom of personal exp<b></b>ression end and your right to not being harassed begin?

I already answered. When I prove that your intention is to provoke injury and harm. And the burden of proof is on me.

 

[sleslie23]

I already answered. When I prove that your intention is to provoke injury and harm. And the burden of proof is on me.

Actually, you are answering how you would respond to the situation (by appealing to the state), not defining the distinction between freedom of exp<b></b>ression and provoking injury and harm.

Above, you made the statement that you support the right of people to make racist statements. Yet, here you seem to admit that there is a point where those statements become injurious. I'm asking you to define that point.

 

[thorsten]

So imagine you build this wonderful house on your ground and your neighbor decides it's time to build a coal-fired power plant on his ground. Obviously his intention is to produce electricity; a side effect is that your house just gets smoked 24/7 - but you cannot prove any bad intent here. In a system you propose, you either have to live with that or move?

 

[camberiu]

Above, you made the statement that you support the right of people to make racist statements. Yet, here you seem to admit that there is a point where those statements become injurious. I'm asking you to define that point.

Ok racism: You write an article saying that Brazilians are lazy, dishonest and should be expelled from the United States at once.

Not OK: You rent a massive sound truck and park it in front of my house and start blasting anything (racist or not) 24/7 with the INTENT OF preventing me from sleeping and therefore driving me out of the country. Is the distinction clear enough?

 

[camberiu]

So imagine you build this wonderful house on your ground and your neighbor decides it's time to build a coal-fired power plant on his ground. Obviously his intention is to produce electricity; a side effect is that your house just gets smoked 24/7 - but you cannot prove any bad intent here. In a system you propose, you either have to live with that or move?

Not at all. I can go to court and claim that the output of his property (smoke) is invading my property (my house and lungs) and causing me harm. Maybe there was no bad intent, but certainly there was negligence. His smoke invading my house (and lungs).

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Actually, you are answering how you would respond to the situation (by appealing to the state), not defining the distinction between freedom of exp<b></b>ression and provoking injury and harm.

Above, you made the statement that you support the right of people to make racist statements. Yet, here you seem to admit that there is a point where those statements become injurious. I'm asking you to define that point.

Do not expect libertarians to be consistent about anything except the notion that selfishness is a virtue - except when someone else is impinging on their own right to be selfish.

 

[thorsten]

So your neighbor doesn't have the right to produce electricity? You can close all windows/doors if you don't like it... Why is your freedom weighted higher in this case than the neighbors freedom?

 

[camberiu]

So your neighbor doesn't have the right to produce electricity? You can close all windows/doors if you don't like it... Why is your freedom weighted higher in this case than the neighbors freedom?

he absolutely does have the right to produce electricity. He just can't put the results of his endeavor into my house. It is not a matter of him not having the right to produce electricity. It is a matter of him not having the right over my house.

 

[sleslie23]

Ok racism: You write an article saying that Brazilians are lazy, dishonest and should be expelled from the United States at once.

Not OK: You rent a massive sound truck and park it in front of my house and start blasting anything (racist or not) 24/7 with the INTENT OF preventing me from sleeping and therefore driving me out of the country. Is the distinction clear enough?

No, it's not clear because you continue to avoid answering the core question which, as Thorsten specified above, is where do the rights of one individual begin and another end?

Which is fine. I don't think there is a very easy answer. I think it depends on the context, which was part of my original point about things not being so black or white.

What I don't understand is how you justify appealing to the state in one context, yet 40 posts ago you were commenting that any restrictions on personal behavior by the state is akin to facism.

 

[camberiu]

What I don't understand is how you justify appealing to the state in one context, yet 40 posts ago you were commenting that any restrictions on personal behavior by the state is akin to facism.

That is not what I said. I said that I consider any restriction on freedom of exp<b></b>ression akin to fascism. You are not free to cause me injury (using freedom of exp<b></b>ression as a disguise). But you should be free to express yourself. And the burden of proof that you are trying to injure me through a malicious exercise of free speech is on me. This is very straight forward.