1
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
1 points (66.7% liked)
Political Discussion and Commentary
749 readers
12 users here now
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
But some of these "rights" do contradict each other.
For example, it may be reasonable to say "I want the freedom to walk through my city downtown without having to smell strong weed", but at the same time it is just as reasonable to say "I want the freedom to smoke weed in my city downtown". Those two rights conflict. They limit each other. You can't have both without restrictions. Which one would you have?
Smoking weed is just an example. You can replace it with "dressing provocatively" or even "dressing entirely naked" or it could be "playing loud unpleasant music in a popular street".
Each of those "restrict the right of others" but so does the reverse. Which right or freedom are we picking?
That is not really a contradiction and again, let's put rights and freedoms in grammatical context using this example: "Freedom of speech is a right." Think about that for a second if you need.
I live in Colorado which is subjectively the weed capitol of the US. Even so, it is illegal to smoke in public places unless it's a designated event which is usually on private property.
Weed is an intoxicating drug. As such, it's customary to restrict the consumption of intoxicants in public. (Hence, it's a law. There is more to this, but out of scope of this conversation.) In theory, the consumption of weed is reduced downtown because people don't want to get a fine or a ticket.
It's a personal freedom to light up wherever the hell you want. If I say, out loud, that I am going to go downtown and smoke a fatty, nobody can throw me in jail for that or tie me up because I said something. If I actually do go downtown and light up, that is not within my legal rights and that action may have consequences.
It's my right, as defined by law, not to smell it in a zone that is designated as weed-free, and notify the police. The police, should protect my rights in that case. (In theory.)
Your freedom to smoke-up was not restricted and my legal rights are enforced by the police.
In the interest of this conversation, I am using "context" is very broady. It may include: Local and state laws, criminal history, reputational history, being on public or private property, current behavior, state of intoxication, and literally the thousands of other in things that lead-up to or describe a scenario.
Legal freedoms and legal rights have limits and those limits are contextual. If I disagree with any legal right OR legal restriction, I can get an attorney and attempt to change a law and petition my government. Those are also my rights.
What is absolutely important is understanding how your rights and freedoms are defined by law. Arbitrarily saying things like, "I have the right to smoke where I want" doesn't cut it.
Again, the only freedoms and rights you have must be defined by law. Those freedoms and rights are not limitless BUT are subject to legal interpretation in their appropriate context AND you have the legal means to adjust that interpretation.
Edit: I am using words here with purpose, so try not to skip over bits. It is extremely challenging to discuss complex topics on social media and I am attempting to be as neutral and unbiased as possible. Separating "rights and freedoms" from "legal rights and freedoms", with all nuances attached, is always a rough topic, btw.
Edit2: Changed typo: "non limitless" to "not limitless".
Both, because nuance exists. You can have a law that says 'No smoking weed in public, except in parks or other outdoor areas where the smell is less likely to bother others.' Where rights and freedoms intersect it makes sense to limit both in ways that are reasonable in the context of their impact on the rights of others.
This seems reasonable, but then at what point do we say "no" to making dedicated spaces because someone thought their rights are being infringed?
Separate spaces for smoking are common. What about dedicated spaces where street music performers can perform and others where they can't?
What if someone doesn't want to see tattoos? At what point do you say "your annoyance is unreasonable"? I mean surely this one is, but is there a guideline that separates this from playing loud music?
A extreme case would be someone who wishes to make a space free of a certain race. Obviously this is ridiculous and bad, but I am seeking a guideline that can separate these unreasonable ones from the reasonable ones.
If you want to line to be somewhere other than where it is right now I think the onus is on you to show that where it is now is causing harm. You aren't harmed by seeing tattoos despite not wanting to, you can't reasonably expect everyone else to cover them up just because they offend you. If they trigger trauma or something individuals may be swayed by sympathy to hide theirs around you out of respect, but that's a choice they make, not a thing you can legislate upon them. Like if you're bad enough off that outlawing the public display of tattoos seems like a reasonable solution then what you have is a 'you problem', not an 'everyone else' problem, and you need to figure out how to get past that so that you can function in the world because it's unreasonable to expect the world to change around you to suit you.
There is no hard and fast guideline other than the general sense of what's reasonable that people develop by interacting. As I said in another comment under this post it's all contingent and case-by-case. Does the harm caused by X outweigh the harm caused by the harm/trouble/inconvenience/etc caused by the negation of X? If so the line probably needs to move.