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

201–210 of 215 posts

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

#201

Post by icebraining »

dieterrams wrote: post #194
icebraining wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trial and especially a fair trial are undeniably interventions on how things would otherwise proceed No, because otherwise it would just be aggression. A trial is a method for the accusers to be able to show that their subsequent aggression (imprisonment, removal of property, etc) is justified.

No, it is to prevent the defendant from being unjustly blamed and punished.

Unjustly blaming and punishing someone is defamation and aggression. You don't need extra rights to be protected from that.

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

#202

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

sqeaky wrote: post #199
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we have data let's go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let's go with mine. What are we to do? One way of dealing with the problem would be to ask the question at census time: Do you believe in Nazi or Nazi like ideologies? and then round those people up and put them to death. This has it's own problems.

I agree that we shouldn't tolerate intolerance, right up until you said "round those people up and put them to death". Any state run mechanism for this will be abused and infringes on a whole bunch of other rights. Doing things like clamping down speech that incites violence or otherwise directly harms people is working. More options are open for almost all members of minorities than ever before (in terms of jobs, op…

I meant to highlight that some people are saying free speech is a binary issue, as though we either have free speech or the end of civilisation.

There are other options, reasonable limits, as you've pointed out.

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

#203

Post by dieterrams »

icebraining wrote: post #201
dieterrams wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is to prevent the defendant from being unjustly blamed and punished.

Unjustly blaming and punishing someone is defamation and aggression. You don't need extra rights to be protected from that.

How about you read declarations of rights to a fair trial and point out where they imply that they are principally about ensuring the accusers' application of aggression is justified, as opposed to protecting the accused?

Whether or not you think an "extra right" is necessary has no bearing on why that right is provided.

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

#204

Post by kerkeslager »

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…

This is exemplary of a tendency organizations have: prioritizing existence of the organization over the values the organization was formed to uphold.

The US was ostensibly formed to preserve the rights of its citizens. If we let people exercise those rights, they may dissolve the union. But if we don't let them exercise those rights in order to preserve the union, the union loses its entire purpose; the union as it was intended is destroyed just as surely as if it were dissolved.

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

#205

Post by bashinator »

bluGill wrote: post #173
moduspol wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we really to the point where Nazi ideologies are spreading like wildfire, to the point that their "intolerance" will be seized by our "tolerance?" To me it seems like the opposite is happening. Nazi ideologies are marginalized and meaningless, yet propped up like some huge threat to us... like they might take over. And this is being used as justification for limiting free speech, in a hyper-politically correct so…

I would argue we have gone the other way: we are so busy stomping down Nazi like ideologies that the stomping it down has become as bad of hate speech as the Nazis were.

Until the government begins a mass extermination program for haters, I can't help but feel this is a hyperbolic argument. Not granting permits to march is totally incomparable with genocide.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

gnaritas wrote: post #168
pmyteh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by akvadrako »

lisper wrote: post #174
akvadrako wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an honest depiction of the situation for 2 reasons. 1. If the 9th amendment is interpreted to mean the courts can declare anything they think is a right, it allows unlimited power. "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." 2. Overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't require much legal logic, except the precedent has been upheld several times. Without that, you could question any…

> If the 9th amendment is interpreted to mean the courts can declare anything they think is a right, it allows unlimited power. No, that's not true. The court can't just decide anything it wants. It can only decide cases that come before it. Before the court gets to decide anything there is a very long drawn-out process that filters out a lot of crap. Furthermore, the court has to decide on the basis of the arguments…

> To overturn Roe you have to figure out why the original conclusion was wrong, and why all of the subsequent confirmations were wrong. That is not so easy.

It's obvious. The case was decided that way in the first place because the courts are political; they were "legislating from the bench".

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

#208

Post by lisper »

akvadrako wrote: post #207
lisper wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the 9th amendment is interpreted to mean the courts can declare anything they think is a right, it allows unlimited power. No, that's not true. The court can't just decide anything it wants. It can only decide cases that come before it. Before the court gets to decide anything there is a very long drawn-out process that filters out a lot of crap. Furthermore, the court has to decide on the basis of the arguments…

> To overturn Roe you have to figure out why the original conclusion was wrong, and why all of the subsequent confirmations were wrong. That is not so easy. It's obvious. The case was decided that way in the first place because the courts are political; they were "legislating from the bench".

OK, but I thought we were talking about legal arguments here. If you're going to maintain the illusion of the legitimacy of the court you have to at least dress the rationale up as something more convincing than, "We're overturning Roe because we were appointed by Republicans."

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

#209

Post by kenjackson »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #193
kenjackson wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect actually Nazis may be a rounding error, but Nazi believers are probably much more. And in some regions maybe even approaching double digit percentages.

If we have data let's go with the data. If all we have is opinions, let's go with mine. What are we to do? One way of dealing with the problem would be to ask the question at census time: Do you believe in Nazi or Nazi like ideologies? and then round those people up and put them to death. This has it's own problems.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/28-approve-trumps-response-ch...

We can go with the data.

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

#210

Post by akvadrako »

lisper wrote: post #208
akvadrako wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To overturn Roe you have to figure out why the original conclusion was wrong, and why all of the subsequent confirmations were wrong. That is not so easy. It's obvious. The case was decided that way in the first place because the courts are political; they were "legislating from the bench".

OK, but I thought we were talking about legal arguments here. If you're going to maintain the illusion of the legitimacy of the court you have to at least dress the rationale up as something more convincing than, "We're overturning Roe because we were appointed by Republicans."

That's true but easier than arguing the previous precedents are wrong. Or so wrong, it would override the weight of them being a precedent.

The idea that the right to privacy implies the right to perform abortion seems like the weakest point to me. That argument only seems plausible if the right to privacy implies we can do anything to ourselves in private.

That's a ridiculous amount of power for a right which isn't even explicitly mentioned and way outside the Federal government's mandate. Not to mention inconsistent with many laws.

Post reply on HN