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

You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 190 posts

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#131

Post by xyzelement »

A pretty bad article. In the American system we constantly test the boundaries of legal definition and it makes sense to test whether "how a water system is managed by a town" and "the right to bodily integrity are overlapping or not, and which way the decision falls is not aprioi obvious.

So it's normal for a judge to have decided this way. Doesn't mean "Americans don't like clear water"

The other thing annoying about the article is the racial angle. The author goes out of her way to mention that the affected town is heavily African American. She doesn't mention that the list of officials that are named as the defendants (including the mayor) are also African American. I am not sure either fact is actually significant, but it's annoying to only have half the story mentioned.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#132

Post by dotancohen »

andai wrote: post #66
embedding-shape wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not everything you want - or need - is a right. Ok, agreed. But safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions? > And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need. What's a better way to guarantee safe drinking water to everyone?

> safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions? If we invert it to the actual reality (many places have unsafe drinking water), then we get "the right to avoid being poisoned by your government". It sounds obvious to me that that should already be the case. But I don't know much about water treatment. Maybe it isn't always feasible? Do people just have to drink bottled water in some places? Or get rever…

I've been to a few islands that must import bottled drinking water. The citizens themselves do, not the government.

I actually got stuck on one such island once, for one night with my then-twelve-year-old. First thing we did after securing a place to sleep, was acquire water.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#133

Post by dotancohen »

hatefulheart wrote: post #47
dotancohen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

Stop editing your ridiculous comment. Rights are enshrined by society, it’s what we choose. Nothing is a right in and of itself contrary to what your comment tries to imply.

  > Stop editing your ridiculous comment.
Do I not have a right to add that second sentence to my comment? Are you offended by me exercising that right?

Your demand is ridiculous, doubly so in a conversation about rights.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#134

Post by dotancohen »

vrganj wrote: post #70
dotancohen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

But maybe it should be ? What does it say about the US government apparatus and its basic claims to legitimacy if it can't even guarantee safe drinking water? What lack of aspiration and ambition does such a denial demonstrate? Why should its citizens accept such an abdication of even the most basic duties?

What national government _does_ guarantee safe drinking water to its citizens? You are attacking the legitimacy of the US government by holding it to a standard that no nation on Earth is held to.

The US has regulations and they are enforced, with some local problems. Just like every other nation on Earth.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#135

Post by iambateman »

I think there is a difference between a right to safe drinking water and a right to provided water which is safe.

The government cannot have a responsibility to provide every person with water, since some people will choose to live in places which are incompatible with that mandate.

But if the government does provide water, it must be clean.

It’s just the government holding itself to its own standard —— if my bottle of Pepsi turned out to have lead in it, the EPA would go to the ends of the earth to pull every bottle from the shelf until the company fixes it. We should expect nothing less from the water in our pipes.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#136

Post by jkahrs595 »

lampe3 wrote: post #58

Crazy that the comments are about the title and the how the legal system should work or does not work but no one cares if the water they need to survive is drinkable or not. I am out of words for this comment section.

Neckbeards arguing semantics of language, it’s like I never left Reddit.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#137

Post by UncleMeat »

mindboggled725 wrote: post #115
stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am absolutely mindboggled at the idea that you think the US should not guarantee safe drinking water everywhere for everyone. Unless this comment is pedantic legal snark.

[flagged]

That’s not what the outcome of this case would be if it went in the other direction.

In this case the state told the people that the water it was already providing was safe, when in fact it was contaminated with lead. This case was about a 1983 suit for state officials knowingly violating a constitutional right.

Few constitutional rights create affirmative responsibility for the state to provide for them. Pretty much just public defenders.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#138

Post by hammock »

gpvos wrote: post #72
themgt wrote: post #30

Plaintiffs ... seek recognition of two new constitutional rights lacking any foundation in the history and tradition of our Nation—the right to be free from exposure to contaminated water and the right to accurate information from public officials. This is like filing a bug report that the Linux kernel allowed your Thunderbird to receive SPAM email containing false information. It's just a fundamental misunderstandin…

The first one I can understand from history (although I do not agree for modern times). But the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy, and it should very strongly be and always have been. (Exceptions like "national security" notwithstanding, and those should probably be more narrowly restricted than they are now.)

Great questions.

In saying “accurate information” there is a hidden presumption that not all government information needs to be shared. Forget about whether it’s accurate or not and who decides what’s accurate, just be maximally open

The framers discussed this in a few key ways, which resonate ALL TOO WELL with today:

Anti federalist Brutus 1 suggested that in a large republic, representatives will be too far removed from their constituents. Because citizens cannot personally observe public officials, the people "cannot be acquainted with their characters, know their motives, nor be informed of their proceedings." A lack of information would prevent citizens from holding officials accountable.

Anti federalist Centinel 1 directly warns against the manipulation of information by the wealthy elite, arguing that the public can easily be deceived by "well-born" politicians who mask their pursuit of tyranny behind noble rhetoric.

In Federalist 10 and 51 Madison argued alternatively (looks naive today) that a large, diverse republic makes it harder for corrupt politicians or factions to spread misinformation effectively across the entire nation.

In Federalist 70 Hamilton explicitly defended a single, powerful President because it provides accountability. With a single executive, the public knows exactly who to blame for bad policy or false statements, preventing officials from shifting blame or hiding behind an anonymous committee

But the Sedition Act passed only 10 years after the constitution made it illegal to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government, a restriction it could be argued that the government doesn’t even have in itself

Modern law of relevance include the Smith Mundt Act 1948 which prohibited the government from propagandizing its own people (limited to foreigners). The smith mundt “modernization” amendment crammed into NDAA 2012 did away with this restriction and now we have an explosion of govt-payroll influencers , news anchors, talking points memos etc that aren’t exactly…accurate

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#139

Post by PepperdineG »

jvdvegt wrote: post #31
lukan wrote: post #18

"Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” " " “Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”" He basically says, the constitution does not care, whether the government lies to citizens, so they…

So from now on you can safely assume your government is lying (especially the current administration). Worrisome...

You could have assumed that since practically inception, especially when it came to treaty signing.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#140

Post by UncleMeat »

dotancohen wrote: post #133
hatefulheart wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop editing your ridiculous comment. Rights are enshrined by society, it’s what we choose. Nothing is a right in and of itself contrary to what your comment tries to imply.

> Stop editing your ridiculous comment. Do I not have a right to add that second sentence to my comment? Are you offended by me exercising that right? Your demand is ridiculous, doubly so in a conversation about rights.

If a state official interferes with this you could have a 1983 claim.
Post reply on HN