If The Powers That Be decided, for any reason or for no reason whatsoever, that they didn’t want you posting on this message board, they could kick you out before you even posted once.
That’s obviously nonsense. Does the 2nd Amendment mean the government has to give me a gun?
Do you not understand the difference between an ethical framework and an enforcement system?
We all understand that the SDMB is supposed to operate by consistent objective standards that are fair to everyone. All you are saying is that there is no way to enforce this.
I understand that any particular ethical framework is not universal, and I know the difference between a right and a desire.
rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory
Not just the Constitution, but any legal system. Not just a legal system, but also social convention or ethical principle.
I’m kind of confused about what any of this has to do with Scott Adams being a racist shithead?
I think the problem is just the opposite. You want to define “right” so broadly" it becomes meaningless, and in the process, denigrates the concept. If getting banned from the SDMB is a violation of your rights, then rights appear to be something trivial and unimportant, and if someone says their rights have been violated, that’s not something that I particularly need to be concerned about.
You have a right to your confusion.
It’s a matter of states’ rights.
(The state of confusion, obviously.)
But that’s exactly the way we all use the word “right” for even more trivial violations of ethical norms. “You had no right to take one of my candies without asking.”
And the purported distinction isn’t between important things and unimportant things. Driving is important to everyone. It’s clear that people are seeking to reserve the word “right” only for what’s protected by the Constitution, even when the right to drive is precisely analogous in every other respect.
It’s perfectly sensible to distinguish between Constitutionally protected rights (the really important ones) and other rights. It’s only the American obsession with the Constitution as a quasi-religious document that leads to a desire to restrict the meaning of words like this.
It’s a mistaken and parochial idea that there is no concept of a “right” except as protected by the Constitution. It’s a mistaken and parochial idea that the concept of “freedom of speech” only extends to the narrow legal specifics set out in the Constitution.
Click on the broken image. Sorry to drag the discussion back to the OP. Sorta. Maybe not.
None of this means we have the right to speak using other private entities’ property (i.e. the SDMB, Twitter, etc.). They have freedom of speech too – and quite crucially, freedom of speech includes the freedom to limit others’ speech on your property. Twitter has the freedom and the right to NOT allow racial slurs on their board (for example). That’s not infringing on anyone else’s rights or freedoms.
Colloquial language is often emotive and imprecise. If you want to argue that “rights” has a broader definition on the basis of usage, in a “descriptivist not prescriptivist” sense, sure, you’re not wrong, but we’re not really discussing the colloquial usage here.
Millions of people living in cities with robust public transport systems would disagree that driving is important to “everyone.”
I’m not sure what the right to drive is supposed to be analogous to, but maybe this helps with the distinction. I don’t think there should be a “right” to drive. I also don’t think it would be smart for the government to ban cars, because of the disruption it would cause to the economy and to peoples’ personal lives. But if we got to a point in the future where everyone, even in really rural areas, had access to robust and cheap public transit, I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban. People should have the right to travel and move freely about the country, but it doesn’t have to be cars that do it, and if there’s an as-good or better solution, its okay to replace it.
A right is something that should never be phased out. In the statement, “We can get rid of free speech now, because we’re replacing it with X,” there’s no value for X that makes it a true statement.
I think you’ve got the cart before the horse on this. It’s not that people think only things in the Constitution are rights, it’s that people think that anything that’s a right should be in the constitution. The right to abortion was just ruled to not be found in the constitution, but it hasn’t stopped anyone from arguing in favor of “abortion rights.” The constitution is silent on the subject of disability rights, but nobody shies away from the term when talking about the ADA. There’s a lot of things I support under the concept of “gay rights” that aren’t reflected in the constitution at all.
You say it’s okay to distinguish between constitutionally protected rights and other “rights,” but the whole point of people bringing in free speech complaints when they get banned from Facebook is to obfuscate that distinction. They’re trying to argue that getting banned by a social media company is the moral and ethical infraction that deserves the same level of attention and concern as having your speech suppressed by the government. “You don’t have a right to post on Facebook,” is pushing back on precisely that idea.
Only if you assume the mistaken premise that there is no such think as a right other than a Constitutional legal right.
It’s not infringing on anyone’s Constitutional rights or freedoms.
But there’s clearly an important debate about the ethical norms of freedom of speech that should apply for somewhere like Twitter if it’s going to be a viable platform for public discourse. The criticism of Musk’s arbitrary banning of journalists is part of the process of having that debate. We clearly all believe that for Twitter to be viable there needs to be some form of due process in these matters, that objective and consistent rules should apply.
No, even if I accept that there are other rights beyond Constitutional legal rights, I don’t see how this stuff is rights. I don’t have the right to shit in someone else’s bathroom. I don’t have the right to drink someone else’s beer. I don’t have the right to post my message on someone else’s property. If they choose to allow any of these things, that’s the right of the owner of the property, and they have the right to rescind that at any time and for any reason.
I have already explained why restricting the word “rights” narrowly to Constitutional rights makes no sense. I was pointing out that any attempt to do so is also contrary to common usage.
The term for that restricted sense is a natural right. I agree that the right to drive is not a natural right.
Okay, well in that case, aggrieved dipshits misusing the word “rights” doesn’t affect my opinions about what constitutes a fundamental freedoms that needs to be enshrined in law. Someone violated your “rights” by stealing your candies? Fuck off, no they didn’t.
So you think anything anyone does to you that is not illegal is fine, and that’s the only consideration? That social and ethical norms have no part in a society?
Sure. But social and ethical norms aren’t rights. They’re… well, social and ethical norms.
All I can do is refer you again the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on “rights”.
This one?
Not seeing a rebuttal in there to anything I said.