pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 2 replies \ @itsrealfake 8h \ on: When is freedom bad? AskSN
Freedom is always fine.
Responses to circumstance are problematic.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is fine. When people respond to it with a mad rush to the exits, that's a problem.
If you cause a stampede, you're in the wrong.
Our laws should be about handling liability, and not causing restrictions to behavior. However, if you spit on the sidewalk ... that's grody, and maybe your peers will penalize you for it. They're free to do so.
The thing about "freedom" is that we all have it, and we exercise it according to our awareness of it.
Our laws should be about handling liability, and not causing restrictions to behavior.
This is pretty much my base case. However, in the context of something like Texas' law new law around age verification for websites with sexually explicit material
-
If someone hosts a porn site online, I don't think they are liable for the harm done to some child who visits that site. It's the parents who should be making sure their kids don't spend time on the internet looking at porn.
-
If someone posts porn to a social media platform, I'd still say it's the parent's job to keep their kids from going to bad places on the internet.
-
If some kids youtube channel has a commercial for an adult site, well now that might be the line. Clearly, YouTube should be liable for that harm. What if it's not particularly a kids channel? In general, I think Youtube just doesn't allow adult ads at all for this reason (at least I've never encountered one on YouTube).
But where is the line between 2 and 3?
reply
<<< Enjoyed this thought experiment, thanks :) >>>
Clearly, YouTube should be liable for that harm.
I would say, It's up to the legislature to decide how to define that harm, how to demonstrate harm, and then to enforce whatever rules they have for penalizing that harm. To the extent that the harm may be measured in different cultures/regions, it's good to let the legislatures decide how to handle the rule making for their district/regions.
I think, if there's harm (there likely is), it should be penalized steeply... whether that means monetary penalty (maybe that would work) or executive leadership penalty (confining leadership in a jail would probably be a good penalty, too).
And, I think if you have put your kids in front of a screen and you're not aware of what the screen is feeding them, that you also carry responsibility for some of the harm. So, as I think about this more deeply, I guess I'm saying "let the lawyers figure out the balance".
In the end, we're responsible for our actions to the extent that we can be.
If you get hit by a car while crossing an intersection, chances are you took your safety for granted and didn't look both ways. If there was a drunk behind the wheel, that person may also be at fault (though I'm not a supporter of MADD, I do acknowledge that being behind a steering wheel is something I would prefer people didn't take lightly).
If you're a child, and you're harmed by an adult or another child, I think the waters get murky... like, I can imagine a circumstance where somebody at an airport trips an unruly toddler who falls and scrapes a knee and cries. While the adult could have felt what they were doing was "good for the rambunctious youth" I suspect that NAP would discourage tripping the kid.
What if the liable entity is predatory, though? How would we demonstrate predation? What mechanisms might we deploy to determine willfulness vs. neglect? Are the rules on the books sufficient for that? I'm here for the 4th amendment, and I'm also here for adjusting old rules to match new realities...
If personhood is granted to incorporated entities by the US Gov, perhaps that's not ideal. An incorporated entity (many humans in a company) has a lot of tools at its disposal to evade/hinder detection of individuals within the company. So, how could we adjust the rules such that the governed (individuals) are correctly balancing their ability to coordinate (as a republic) with the need for innovation (exercising freedom from norms)?
reply