What's a right?

[Viper1j]

I dont know, its a tough one IMO.

Social media needs to be held to account to a much larger degree than they are now. It's a necessity.

Throughout history we've always been able to error correct new sources of information as technology has marched onwards.

This can be no different.

The Long and Brutal History of Fake News

Bogus news has been around a lot longer than real news. And it’s left a lot of destruction behind.

www.politico.com

And I think under this umbrella, accountability for tech giants, we will find "protection for the kids" as well.

Ok, what about the old sources? I'm old enough to remember when if your buddy couldn't lift a Playboy from the 7-11, you went to the library and read National Geographic to look at titties.

Should there be a law banning Nat Geo?

 

[HomerJS]

Problem with these hearings, politicians get their screen time but once the lobbyist money starts flowing the issue goes away.

 

[cytg111]

Ok, what about the old sources? I'm old enough to remember when if your buddy couldn't lift a Playboy from the 7-11, you went to the library and read National Geographic to look at titties.

Should there be a law banning Nat Geo?

No, but you should probably have to very that you're actually over 18(or 15 or 21, whatever) if you want to go on social media... And make in fineable to your parents if you circumvent the rules.

 

[pmv]

A right is a power, duty, or privilege guaranteed to you by the nation/state.

Something doesn't have to be explicitly listed in the Constitution to be a right. You have the right to breathe air, but neither breathing nor air are explicitly listed in the constitution. Feel free to check the constitution for yourself. However, you can infer your right to breathe air from the 5th and 14th amendments (you shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law).

Similarly, you could make a good argument for a right to the internet. Again, see the "liberty" above and combine that with freedom of speech in the 1st amendment. One could make a pretty good constitutional argument that the (right to freedom of speech) + (right to liberty) = (right to internet).

So do we have the right to _clean_ air? Or do all the motorists in the area have the 'right' to pump diesel particulates and NOx into it?
Do I have the right to "free movement" or do I have to wait by the kerb till motorists deign to let me cross the road without killing me?

The whole way "rights" are discussed seems very dubious to me. I heard some legal scholar arguing that the US is an outlier in the way its legal system regards 'rights', insofar as it seems to mean that if you can claim your grievance involves a violated 'right' then that automatically trumps all other consideration - whereas other countries' legal systems take a more nuanced view, where it's taken as a given that 'rights' will conflict, and always need to be balanced against each other, and are just taken as one factor among many.

Not being a philosopher of law I can't say I followed the argument, but it just seems self-evident that "rights" are a slippery concept, as occurs to me every time I find myself nearly choking while walking along a main road or being stuck on a bus that's stuck in a massive traffic jam behind a queue of stationary vehicles clogging up the road. Or when I see petrol-heads protesting angrily about the low-emission-zone.

 

[soundforbjt]

Carlin lays out your rights:

 

[iRONic]

Know your rights! All three of them!

 

[APU_Fusion]

The only right is the right to parrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtayyyyyyyyy

 

[Fkstick McDuff]

The only right is the right to parrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtayyyyyyyyy

And even that one you gotta fight for!