Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

thewire.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 215 posts

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#161

Post by gnaritas »

coldtea wrote: post #93
dalbasal wrote: post #54

A lot of conversations about expanding rights, end up with a distinction between positive and negative rights. A right to water, is different to free speech. For everyone to have a right to water, someone needs to provide the water or be held accountable for not providing it. A default, state culprit needs to be designated. Privacy though, privacy is like speech or equality before the law or presumption of innocence.…

> The right to free speech, conscience, affiliation , assembly and other political freedoms mean we need to tolerate and protect the proverbial nazis’ rights to try and spread their politics. Bitter pill for anyone scared of a proverbial nazi takeover. Nazi's are an easy target. The problem starts when things are not as clean cut -- when actual politics are involved, as opposed to crude stuff like "exterminate all je…

I don't see why any of those are problematic, all should be protected as free speech. Speech is not violence, it does not have victims and thus should not be in any way a crime no matter how repugnant. No speech should ever be banned.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#162

Post by gnaritas »

bckygldstn wrote: post #89
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The right to free speech, conscience, affiliation , assembly and other political freedoms mean we need to tolerate and protect the proverbial nazis’ rights to try and spread their politics. I'm not convinced I know how I feel about this. I want to believe this is a false dichotomy. Can we have limits in polite society ? I keep thinking of the paradox of tolerance [1], which states, in brief, that if a society is to…

Many countries have limitations to free speech (e.g., Germany banning holocaust denial, Sweden banning hate speech) but have a free and open culture in spite of this. It's a hard balance to strike, but freedom of speech doesn't have to be all or nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

Then it's not free speech. If you're not free to speak about certain things, you do not have freedom of speech, it is very much all or nothing. Freedom is a binary condition, you either have it, or you don't.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#163

Post by gnaritas »

noufalibrahim wrote: post #95
sametmax wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limit is action. Words are not important. But a lot of words are mixed with actions: harassments, segregation, etc. Those should be clearly identified so that free speech don't protect them.

This is tricky. I think a workable solution is to create zones where free speech is unrestricted and where new ideas can be incubated. They themselves would have some restrictions (e.g. you can't physically hurt the person you lost a debate to) but would, by and large, be free speech zones. The idea was described in this speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJktQiZRa5A The rest of society can have different rules w…

That's an absolutely awful idea. It's great if you want to live in a totalitarian regime, otherwise awful.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#164

Post by pmyteh »

gnaritas wrote: post #162
bckygldstn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many countries have limitations to free speech (e.g., Germany banning holocaust denial, Sweden banning hate speech) but have a free and open culture in spite of this. It's a hard balance to strike, but freedom of speech doesn't have to be all or nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

Then it's not free speech. If you're not free to speak about certain things, you do not have freedom of speech, it is very much all or nothing. Freedom is a binary condition, you either have it, or you don't.

It may be that having 'full' freedom is correct in some senses, but it seems fairly clear that it's non-binary.

A government which firmly censors newspapers writing restaurant reviews but allows anything else is fairly clearly more free than one which also forbids discussion of politics, religion, and the football results. I don't think anybody would say they are indifferent to which of the two they would prefer, on the grounds that neither are wholly free.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#165

Post by denzil_correa »

vkrm wrote: post #104
denzil_correa wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Access to food, clothing, and shelter are NOT fundamental rights This is not true. Food, water, education and shelter are fundamental rights under Article 21.

IANAL and I could be wrong here, but I think thats only partially right. Although article 21 itself doesn't say anything about food, shelter etc, the courts have established precedent by including those in their interpretation of article 21 and the directive principles in the past. However, I'm not sure there has been a ruling specifically affirming those rights as being fundamental, and the text of the constituion d…

> However, I'm not sure there has been a ruling specifically affirming those rights as being fundamental, and the text of the constituion definitely does not mention them as fundamental rights

Yes, there are rulings specifically affirming food, water etc. as fundamental rights.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#167

Post by lisper »

humanrebar wrote: post #107
lisper wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody disputes that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive. Unfortunately, that is not true. Robert Bork famously disputed it, even going so far as to deny the validity of the ninth amendment. Many conservatives support Bork's position today, e.g.: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/336142/judge-borks-ink... They do this because it's a logical pre-requisite for overturning Roe v. Wade.

> They do this because it's a logical pre-requisite for overturning Roe v. Wade. It's not. They could just rule that fetuses of a certain gestational age are actually people and ban late term abortions (with fair exceptions). Or they could rule that those fetuses are people and leave it to individual states to decide how to balance the rights to privacy and speech in these cases. States have the ability to use capita…

> They could just rule that fetuses of a certain gestational age are actually people and ban late term abortions

Late term abortions are already largely illegal even under Roe. The political constituency that supports overturning Roe is ideological; they want to ban ALL abortions. So you would need to declare not only that fetuses are people, but that embryos are people, and that is fraught with all manner of legal peril. Should embryos be counted in the census? What about frozen embryos?

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#168

Post by gnaritas »

pmyteh wrote: post #164
gnaritas wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it's not free speech. If you're not free to speak about certain things, you do not have freedom of speech, it is very much all or nothing. Freedom is a binary condition, you either have it, or you don't.

It may be that having 'full' freedom is correct in some senses, but it seems fairly clear that it's non-binary. A government which firmly censors newspapers writing restaurant reviews but allows anything else is fairly clearly more free than one which also forbids discussion of politics, religion, and the football results. I don't think anybody would say they are indifferent to which of the two they would prefer, on…

It's an abuse of language to call either of them free, neither are free, one is simply less authoritarian than the other. Yes, authoritarianism is not binary, there are many levels, but freedom of speech is binary, if you can be jailed for speaking, you do not have freedom of speech, you have an authoritarian government that may be less worse than others, but don't confuse it or label it as less free, it's simply not free. What you're doing is newspeak.

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#169

Post by lisper »

dragonwriter wrote: post #41
lisper wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody disputes that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive. Unfortunately, that is not true. Robert Bork famously disputed it, even going so far as to deny the validity of the ninth amendment. Many conservatives support Bork's position today, e.g.: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/336142/judge-borks-ink... They do this because it's a logical pre-requisite for overturning Roe v. Wade.

> They do this because it's a logical pre-requisite for overturning Roe v. Wade. It's really not, though, it's just a convenience; one could easily find grounds tomreverse Roe.and even the subsequent abortion decisions without just ignoring the Ninth Amendment. The real reason is that the Ninth Amendment is irreconcilable with the narrow mode of textualism that I personally think of as “four corners” or “sola scriptu…

> one could easily find grounds to reverse Roe

No, it's not so easy. Conservatives have been trying unsuccessfully to overturn it for 44 years. (Actually, that's not quite true. The effort to overturn Roe didn't actually start until 1979, fully six years after Roe was decided on a 7-2 vote. And the truth is they don't really want to overturn it. They really just want to use it as a wedge issue.)

Re: Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

#170

Post by bluGill »

carradjm wrote: post #158
coldtea wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The right to free speech, conscience, affiliation , assembly and other political freedoms mean we need to tolerate and protect the proverbial nazis’ rights to try and spread their politics. Bitter pill for anyone scared of a proverbial nazi takeover. Nazi's are an easy target. The problem starts when things are not as clean cut -- when actual politics are involved, as opposed to crude stuff like "exterminate all je…

They absolutely should be able to express their ideas, as long as they do so in a peaceful and non-threatening way.

If the idea is not peaceful though, even though the expression is? "We should change the law to make murder legal" is a peaceful statement, but if it catches on...
Post reply on HN