Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Wouldn't the right to assembly cover a) hanging out in the general vicinity of certain people or b) getting together with a bunch of people for protest or other social movement purposes, but still require you to follow other laws while doing these things (in the same way that being licensed to drive a car does not give you carte blanche to catapult your vehicle through the next hospital you see)? I don't think it's relevant to planning to murder somebody, particularly.

[kaijyuu]

Just for clarification, though, if they actually made physical plans, gathered the appropriate material, and had a set date and apparently the willingness to commit the act, that wouldn't be covered under the right to assembly as you're conceiving it? It's fine to plan out a murder, but not prepare for it?

Starting to hit grey area, since the potential victim definitely deserves protection from the possible act. Would "protection" include stuff like a restraining order? If a restraining order, why not jail time to protect other potential victims? etc.

You're drawing the utilitarian out of me Ideally, no, I don't think that should be a crime either. However, I'll go utilitarian right now and say that provided everything was obtained legally, adequate protection for the potential victim can include things like a restraining order and (temporary) confiscation of weapons/etc.

[Flare]

To further clarify, there are two types of intent here. The intent to do harm, and the intent to carry it out. Most of us has experienced the first one, either driven by rage or another volatile emotion. The second one is what will cause the person to be liable. Most of us haven't intended to carrying out harm (or at least I hope so) even if we had an emotional predilection towards desiring it at the time.

The status of this second intent is very important. It's the difference between first degree and third degree murder, even manslaughter. I'm not saying that people should be arrested with scant evidence of the latter intent. With the nature of intent as an internal issue, the evidence will have to be extremely strong, in fact much stronger than when the person has actually committed murder to charge someone.

In response to how this ties in with the right to assembly. It is abused in order to bring about harms that couldn't otherwise be done without the organization of multiple people. There's no law against this, but the responsibilities of holding rights usually mean that the holders have to observe the freedoms and the law itself as an agreement.

[Gunner-Chan]

It's not grey at all, freedom of assembly doesn't cover conspiracy to commit crimes. Since most crimes by definition infringe on the rights of others, and when you start doing that, even in the united states your words and actions are NOT protected anymore.

Ninja'd. Flare said it better.

[Criptfeind]

When two rights seem to conflict, the repressing one wins out.

This is something I can agree with, but you need to make the connection between this thought and the rest of yours, there are a million 'rights' in various ways, including anti right rights, if that makes any sense. For instance, should I person not have the right to a basic level of safety and peace of mind? And does that not clash with certain application of the rights of speech and action?

IE: I can not be safe nor feel safe if people are plotting to murder me, their 'right' to plot is repressing several of my rights (although of course the choice of which is repressing which is arbitrary, but I think we can agree that most people would generally see it that way.) therefor they should not have the right to do it?

The freedom in question is freedom of assembly. In order for this to not protect plotting to harm someone, "not being plotted against to be harmed" needs to be a right of the potential victim. A case definitely could be made for that, but to me that falls under thought crime, since no action was taken against the victim yet.

1: The application must matter, there is a difference in degrees and refusing to talk of it in anything but absolutes is just wrong. Saying you have the Right to Assembly to plot to kill someone is the same as saying you have the right to plot to kill someone. There is no difference and making it illegal to plot to kill someone will not make it illegal to make other plans. This is a -critical- difference here. The degrees, do you understand what I am saying?

2: Essentially a action has been taken, the act of plotting itself, causing a loss of safety and peace of mind in the victim. You must chose where to draw the line on this, but just saying it is a thought crime and does not count because it is not physical is not much different from saying assault does not count because it did not kill them.

[Frumple]

You must chose where to draw the line on this, but just saying it is a thought crime and does not count because it is not physical is not much different from saying assault does not count because it did not kill them.

The underlined, at least, is taking your point too far. By that standard, the majority of the human species would be guilty of sexual assault, or conspiracy to commit it, simply because of natural psycho/physiological reactions to their preferred gender. There is a hefty difference between the two scenarios given (planning versus action, assault versus murder). There may be some degree of connection, but "not much" isn't a good way to describe the difference, there.

The peace of mind thing in your first bit can also be questioned, to a certain degree, depending on how you're defining it. Peace of mind re: potential harm, yes, people should ideally have that. I've seen that line of reasoning extended to stuff like contrary-but-harmless ideological differences, though.

You should have a right to not fear for your safety, but peace of mind is often construed to extend beyond that; i.e. to not be able to be forced to interact with dissenting or diverse opinions. At which point you're a half step from walling off portions of your population simply because they think differently or have a different cultural background. I rather seriously doubt most people would consider xenophobia or bigotry, especially when it manifests physically, a defensible right.

Giving credit where due, I do imagine you meant peace of mind: re: freedom from fear of personal safety.

[kaijyuu]

When two rights seem to conflict, the repressing one wins out.

This is something I can agree with, but you need to make the connection between this thought and the rest of yours, there are a million 'rights' in various ways, including anti right rights, if that makes any sense. For instance, should I person not have the right to a basic level of safety and peace of mind? And does that not clash with certain application of the rights of speech and action?

IE: I can not be safe nor feel safe if people are plotting to murder me, their 'right' to plot is repressing several of my rights (although of course the choice of which is repressing which is arbitrary, but I think we can agree that most people would generally see it that way.) therefor they should not have the right to do it?

The freedom in question is freedom of assembly. In order for this to not protect plotting to harm someone, "not being plotted against to be harmed" needs to be a right of the potential victim. A case definitely could be made for that, but to me that falls under thought crime, since no action was taken against the victim yet.

1: The application must matter, there is a difference in degrees and refusing to talk of it in anything but absolutes is just wrong. Saying you have the Right to Assembly to plot to kill someone is the same as saying you have the right to plot to kill someone. There is no difference and making it illegal to plot to kill someone will not make it illegal to make other plans. This is a -critical- difference here. The degrees, do you understand what I am saying?

2: Essentially a action has been taken, the act of plotting itself, causing a loss of safety and peace of mind in the victim. You must chose where to draw the line on this, but just saying it is a thought crime and does not count because it is not physical is not much different from saying assault does not count because it did not kill them.

Aha, here's where I was hoping to steer the debate.

Everything you just said makes perfect sense to me.


Right to peace of mind: I'm not sure I agree that it's a right, since "peace of mind" can mean a hell of a lot of things. For example, a homophobic parent might have "peace of mind" knowing their children could never have a gay marriage. There are some things under that label I could get behind; having a right to not be harassed, for example. Ultimately it's too broad for me to agree that it's a right.

Given that I already said that rights can be superseded by other rights, then yes I can see freedom of assembly not covering plotting harm provided "not being plotted against" was a right of the potential victim. So yes, I understand that restricting it will not restrict other things related to freedom of assembly, nor things relating to "plotting" acts that don't cause harm.

I don't really want to get into a debate about whether plotting is actually an "act" against the victim or not. It'll be largely semantics. I'll concede an "agree to disagree" to anyone who thinks it is, and of course the fact that I could be wrong, and we can go on our merry way.



Do we wanna go back to the original topic or is that debated to death already?

[Criptfeind]

Right to peace of mind: I'm not sure I agree that it's a right, since "peace of mind" can mean a hell of a lot of things. For example, a homophobic parent might have "peace of mind" knowing their children could never have a gay marriage. There are some things under that label I could get behind; having a right to not be harassed, for example. Ultimately it's too broad for me to agree that it's a right.

Well, we would have to let society decide on specific cases, the same way that I said it was arbitrary we put the plotting below safety. Ideally we would base it on a pretty basic happiness and need formula. IE: People need to feel safe and people need to be able to be whatever sexuality they are, but people don't need to plot and people don't need to be happy with their childrens life choices.

The underlined, at least, is taking your point too far.

It depends, I would think, after all, you use sexual thoughts as a example, which I am not quite seeing. For most cases non obvious sexual thoughts cause no discomfort, and obvious ones have their own punishments in the form of stigmas against the lecher. Especially if it is brought to the point of plans of sexual assault. We come full circle.

Thus the difference between a thought out plan and a momentary vision of punching that one ass hole.

There may be some degree of connection, but "not much" isn't a good way to describe the difference, there.

Please note, that I said A as to C as B is to D, not the A is to B as C is to D that I think you set that up as.

You should have a right to not fear for your safety, but peace of mind is often construed to extend beyond that; i.e. to not be able to be forced to interact with dissenting or diverse opinions. At which point you're a half step from walling off portions of your population simply because they think differently or have a different cultural background. I rather seriously doubt most people would consider xenophobia or bigotry, especially when it manifests physically, a defensible right.

Of course then you need to see there is a line, a easy to see line, when you start taking more peace of mind away for peace of mind, you are no longer following what I am saying. Or other rights as well I guess, depending on what they are.

[kaijyuu]

Right to peace of mind: I'm not sure I agree that it's a right, since "peace of mind" can mean a hell of a lot of things. For example, a homophobic parent might have "peace of mind" knowing their children could never have a gay marriage. There are some things under that label I could get behind; having a right to not be harassed, for example. Ultimately it's too broad for me to agree that it's a right.

Well, we would have to let society decide on specific cases, the same way that I said it was arbitrary we put the plotting below safety. Ideally we would base it on a pretty basic happiness and need formula. IE: People need to feel safe and people need to be able to be whatever sexuality they are, but people don't need to plot and people don't need to be happy with their childrens life choices.

*nod*

Fair enough

[Frumple]

Caveat: Headache, hunger, and need-of-sleep. Not as coherent as I'd like. Unfortunately, if I waited 'till tomorrow, the conversation would probably be fair beyond this point.

It depends, I would think, after all, you use sexual thoughts as a example, which I am not quite seeing. For most cases non obvious sexual thoughts cause no discomfort, and obvious ones have their own punishments in the form of stigmas against the lecher. Especially if it is brought to the point of plans of sexual assault. We come full circle.

Thus the difference between a thought out plan and a momentary vision of punching that one ass hole.

Near as I can tell, my point there was that the distance between that momentary vision and a thought out plan is an order of magnitude smaller than the distance between a thought out plan and the actual act. The distance of relation between thought out plan and act, not the one between thought out plan momentary vision, is the important aspect. If the distance between plan and act is the same as momentary fantasy and plan, then the distance between momentary fantasy and act can't be terribly large.

Insofar as I can parse myself, the point is that the act of plotting does not jive well with the act of assault. The latter takes interaction between the actor and acted upon, while the former does not. Acts of a different kind.

Please note, that I said A as to C as B is to D, not the A is to B as C is to D that I think you set that up as.

I think the best way to respond to this is that the distance between A -> B is considerably further than C -> D, so the comparison of A -> C and B -> D doesn't quite match up. A is of a different magnitude of action than C.

 I'd say there's a bigger gap between plan and act than act and worse act, so saying that plan is equivalent to act in act-worse act doesn't strike me as as a fair statement. Parallel would have been a better word than "not much", as least to me.

Of course then you need to see there is a line, a easy to see line, when you start taking more peace of mind away for peace of mind, you are no longer following what I am saying. Or other rights as well I guess, depending on what they are.

Yeah, that point was more of a 'be careful with that phrase' than anything actually against your point. People of a particular malicious slant have a nasty habit of extending 'peace of mind' beyond the point it should be used and -- by and large -- considering their own peace of mind to be the only one that matters.

[Criptfeind]

Hum. I am not 100% sure what you are saying with that first point, for I am still, technically, asleep at this time, but if you are saying what I think you are saying, then, even if I disagree with the particulars, which I do, I can understand the summary, but I can not understand how that connects to your first statement on the matter.

As for the rest, I guess you are correct with the first one, and perhaps the metaphor could be tighter (although I still stand by the basic idea) and you do have a point with the second one. I guess I am separating the theory too far from the reality, but perhaps the single most fallacy I need to argue against is the slippery slope one, which can be unpleasant for it has roots in reality (or indeed it can be used as a logical argument, even if very few do.)

[DrPoo]

He got what he fucking deserved. Actually i think his punishment was too short.
I think you should sit in isolation for 3 years for such crap. And kids should be removed from their parents, bullying kids are just shitty little terrorists who havent been raised properly by their stupid fucking parents.

[Vector]

Ah, so everything we do is a product of our environment?  Wow!  Your logic is bowling me over with its creativity!

[woose1]

Eh, 3 years is a bit extreme. But this sort of thing really shouldn't go unpunished.

[DrPoo]

Ah, so everything we do is a product of our environment?  Wow!  Your logic is bowling me over with its creativity!

If my parents didnt raise me to be helpful to other people, i would most likely be a socially inept assclown like that troll. I never stated that our actions is a product of our enviroment, and why insult my logic when my opinion is based on my heart? It dosent smell right to let theese sadistic products of maternal alchoholism waltz around free in soceity.