No First Amendment if They Ban You

I think the right to privacy is an example of liberty. So someone's right of liberty to invade another's privacy is counteracted by one's right of privacy.

 

Which is precisely why most of us disagreed with you earlier, especially when you kept pushing the "property rights should not trump free speech" card, and it's exactly the reason I do not consider I was dodging the question when I said both privacy and free speech can and should coexist. You've just given the perfect framework of how this can be done. Back to the case itself: Estavillo's right to free speech ended where Sony's rights to freely decided what they want on their forum began. It's their forum, they get to make the rules. If you like them, post there. If you don't, post on your own forum. This would become a free speech issue if ISPs started deciding which websites you're allowed to access (which I believe they do in Australia)

 

They can coexist but as I said before liberty trumps property rights.

 

Apparently you disagree with US law, too. Human body parts cannot be sold and, as a result, their theft has no monitary value.

I'll make sure to tell all the Jehovah's Witnesses you're opinion. Where do you live again?

Seriously, if a homeless man walked into your house, took a dump on your sofa, and claimed it was free expression of his opinion of your sofa, which would you want to be more important: you're property rights or his freedom of expression?

Only because you've redefiined liberty and property rights. Tell me, what does constitute property rights, then?

 

As I said before, I don't think corporations should be given the same rights as people. The people behind the corporations are not held reponsible for their actions, so corporations shouldn't get the same rights as people.

No. Most wouldn't consider that freedom of expression. That would be an assault.

No. I'd brush up on my political science, if I were you. You can start with reading the wiki link I posted earlier. Then let me know if you understand the historical definitions, rather than the twisted redefintions coming from Limbaugh and Beck.

 

No. Corporations are staffed by people. They are not people. There's a difference.

Corporate profits should take a backseat to individual rights.

 

Even though I disagree with his general position, Thrasher is obviously the lone wolf here, so I’m going to throw something out here that may or may not help him, depending on what he does with it.

While privacy rights are important, I see a big difference between an individual’s home, where non-owners are generally welcome only by express invitation, versus the case of a web site, shopping mall, office tower, etc., where people are generally encouraged to visit without any specific invitation, and therefore could be considered public areas. Granted, in the case of these “public areas”, there is usually a set of rules that on is expected to follow, and particularly in the case of a web site where comments can be posted, there is almost always a set of rules that you must agree to before you are allowed to post, but I still see a fundamental difference from an individual’s home.

 

I can ask the same question in the opposite direction. Why should a corporation have the right to hurt people in the name of profits? Shouldn't individual rights of liberty and life take priority over corporate profits?

 

Let's imagine you had a terminal illness that could be cured by a drug company. But you can't afford to pay for the drug because the company is charging a huge profit. So do you think it's proper for you to die, because the company's rights to its property is more important than your right live? Even if you could pay for it at cost?

 

Actually, it's not assault as it isn't an attack on you. Also, such expression has in the past been held up as protected speech.

I'm quite familiar with Locke. I also think he was an idiot. The idea that one's actions should be completely free as long as they don't interfere with other people's right to live is directly contrary to a stable society. That is a society in which theft, assault, and even rape are protected rights. Remember, as long as they don't take a life, they haven't violated your right to life.

You are cells. Corporations are people. Same thing. If you hurt the body, you harm the component pieces.

There's one big difference you're missing here. Sony's website had a Terms of Use agreement. That means, effectively, that they only let people in if they agreed to abide by certain rules. That's no different (and more formal) than someone opening up their house for a large party.

Now a mall may be something different. Generally speaking, there are no special rules for malls, and people won't be turned away.

Honestly? Yes, I do. "At cost" is a misnomer. Even if you paid the entire cost of manufacturing, including overhead, workers' pay, and taxes, you still wouldn't have even started a downpayment for the development cost. You're essentially taking someone else's life work and giving them the month's rent, nothing more.

In a more direct response, though, your life does not give you the right to take from someone else. Neither does your speech. Your above example is little different than someone who's dying of liver failure. If you have liver tissue that matches, their dying doesn't give them the right to demand a part of your liver. If they try, that's assault.

 

No, in this hypothetical situation I was considering development costs? Why weren't you?

Do you hold a corporation's property above individual life and liberty, no matter the situation? If so, then that's very sad.

And yes, I would consider pooping in someone's house an assault as would any normal thinking person. Just because some weirdo considers it a form of speech doesn't make it true.

You don't think your examples of rape, assault, and theft don't violate someone's freedom? Very odd reasoning there...

 

Well, if you're covering development costs, then you can afford to re-develop the drug yourself! Seriously, you're assuming a hypothetical situation that's so unreasonable it'd never happen. If you have enough to cover development costs, you have many thousand times enough to cover a single dose (or even a daily regimen).

Again you seem to think the relationship should be static and absolute. No, I don't think a corporation's right to property should always override an individual's right to life or liberty, but neither do I believe the individual's right to life or liberty should always override the corporation's right to property.

You can't assault an inanimate object. In reality, the worst you could charge this person with would be tresspassing and property damage. Oh, and indecent exposure.

Oh, I definitely do, but they aren't a right to life. Locke said (and you appear to agree) that nothing should violate your right to liberty except someone else's right to life.