And my point is that you don't actually give a shit, you're just trying to shut up people who disagree with you by using a cheap, emotionally manipulative tactic. You have no solutions, you have nothing to contribute, you have no point.
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
My bad for not quoting I guess but I was responding to that british law quoted where they could use you failing to mention things against you despite having a right to silence. That's in need of fixing if it hasn't been fixed yet. If you get a right to not incriminate yourself, it shouldn't have this huge gaping loophole.
How is it a "loophole"? It's a core feature of British law. The existence of a right doesn't mean that exercising that right has zero consequences. Why should it mean that?
It's a bit more of a loophole that someone can just wait until everyone else has given testimony, listen, and then give their own testimony to fit it afterwards.
The meaning of a right is a thing you are owed from the world and society by virtue of your being. If it is owed to you, to exercise something is fundamentally correct and just. Nothing should coax or coerce you against exerting your birthright as you so deserve. Any such attempt is to make the thing into not a right but merely an option. A freedom. A right is more significant than a freedom or a choice. It's a higher tier of act that is wholly pure when acted and validates your humanity every time you exercise it.
Again, if you wanna stop this from being a right, there are venues for that through the legal system. You don't need to drag down the entire meaning of things being rights in your wake. You can just go through the process and make this thing stop being a right any longer.
I actually haven't seriously thought much of either so I don't have any strong feelings on them one way or another, I just kinda see em as one more piece of the status quo and they don't really stand out all that much so I wouldn't place much focus on their impact. It's pretty damn hard to prove slander as it is, you have to show intent to cause harm and not mere ignorant lying took place, which is very difficult cause you have to basically prove someone's thoughts or feelings beyond reasonable doubt.
I wish I could say this surprised me. A right comes with responsibility. If is not carte blanche to act like a fucking savage.
The nuance here is that you can't incriminate someone when they exercise the literal right that prevents them from incriminating themselves.
It's a different situation compared to someone exercising their right to do something and then being prevented from doing some other thing.
This situation here basically negates the right you're supposed to have, it doesn't punish you with different consequences, so even if you wanna take the stance that you have to exercise your rights responsibly you still fundamentally have a conflict here cause how the hell do you exercise your right to not incriminate yourself if you did a crime and either way you're screwed. The spirit of the right is to protect you from incriminating yourself and that is just gone here, they're criminalizing choosing to not incriminate yourself as is your right, it's sophistry.
If you actually committed a crime and plead the 5th, then it cuts both ways. You cannot incriminate yourself, but you also have to let your legal team do all the talking for you. I don't see what the problem is here, unless you think that pleading the fifth entitles you to a not-guilty verdict.
"Wholly pure"? "Validates your humanity"? No, this fanciful, borderline-religious language doesn't have anything to do with the broad understanding of what a right is.
Rights are guaranteed by law, not by birth. And they very much are "options", or "freedoms". They are things you have the freedom to do, which the state should not infringe on your ability to do so.
Nothing states that they must be free of consequence. You have the right to free speech. And a consequence of that is that people might think you're an idiot if you exercise it unwisely; or if you exercise your right-to-free-speech to say something incriminating, the consequence may be that you're more likely to be found guilty. You have the right to assembly. And a consequence of that is that you may be legally associated with those you assemble with. And on and on.
Your conception of what a "right" means has precious little to do with its actual, legal definition.
Rights have definitions and to define something is inherently limiting because you specify the things it is not just as much as the things it is. Part of the definition of free speech includes the limitations imposed on it, but they are not, in fact limitations TO the right, they are THE right. The things it doesn't entitle you to are part of it, not limitations placed on it, but just it itself.
It's different from something which entitles you to avoid incrimination, being used to show criminality. The idea is you should not have to cooperate with police, because such coercion on the hands of cops is bad for liberty.
Consequences are not a limitation. Consequences do not prevent you from exercising your right to free speech. They are merely outcomes. Exactly the same rationale applies to the right to free speech as the right to silence.
Why must the only outcomes of you exercising a right be positive? Why should people be exempt from negative outcomes?
Saying that consequences are "part of" the right to free speech, but for some reason not "part of" the right to silence, is arbitrary and nonsensical.
The speech consequences are not part of what free speech entitles you to, so they are not consequences for free speech, they're consequences for conduct wholly separate to it. I'm sure you've heard people say that certain things don't qualify as free speech. That's delineating them from things that do, hence, when you punish people that engage in this conduct you are not punishing them for free speech.
Slander, libel, violent threats, those are their own sorts of things, not also free speech too.
I'm not talking about criminal consequences, for things that are not protected by the right to free speech. I'm talking about consequences in terms of the responses of those around you, to things that are entirely protected by the right to free speech.
Even things that are entirely protected by free speech have consequences. You're perfectly free to mouth off at work about how you don't want to do anything. That's free speech; it's not a crime, you can't be prosecuted. The consequence to your exercising your right in that manner is that your employer decides that you're not a very good choice for a promotion.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
The two both exist in tandem but somewhat independent of each other.
And those responsibilities are often very minimal or at the very least not legally enforceable.
It’s not a law (strictly speaking); it’s the police caution that is quoted when making a formal arrest. Similar in principle to the Miranda Rights in the US.
Pretty much this. And even moreso, the way that it is phrased is similar to "You have the right to remain silent, but if you exercise that right and later claim something that can prove your innocence, we are allowed to ask you why you didn't say something earlier."
Ok so, if you just mouth off at work about not wanting to do your job, but then do in fact do your job, I don't really think it makes sense to be fired for that. And if you don't do your job, well, that's you violating your work contract which you don't have a right to, so yeah of course you'll be fired. If the work also has courtesy guidelines in its contract and you agree to them then you can be fired for that too, but I seriously, seriously doubt some dude griping about hating his job and wanting to sit and do nothing while in a crab fishing vessel out in the wild cold oceans will be getting any sort of consequences for that speech if he does in fact do his job, so this is some sort of bourgeois context where courtesy and feelings matter more than job performance.
See, the thing is, you getting a job is voluntary, you choose to give up some of your rights in the deal. You are not forced to work at a place with any type of limitation, and while most places have some sort of it, you can still somewhat choose which one of those you are comfortable with, so there is no violation there. All there is is a deal being struck. You give up some freedom to earn money and the employers is guaranteed a stable workforce with minimal disruptions or whatever it is. As long as people are voluntarily engaging in it, their rights are not being violated, they're merely choosing not to exercise them to make money, which is fine.
If you strike a deal that in exchange for money you won't exercise your right to free speech, that context is different from one where you didn't agree to anything, yet are socially expected to not exercise it anyways.
I mean, it's not the same is it. One is a positive right, "you can remain silent, but if you mouth off what you say counts as evidence", and the other is "if you don't share your proof of innocence right away, without the arcane wisdom of a lawyer to advise you in your phrasing, we will consider that sus", that's a negative right, it puts the onus on the person to know how to phrase their circumstances. Everyone can remain silent and not say anything but a lot of people can't phrase why they're innocent correctly and they are more likely to just screw themselves by saying unnecessary things or may try to lie since they are in a structure where not saying anything is penalized so they are getting themselves deeper in the hole than if they just got caught for that initial crime cause now they lied to the cops too. It's similar but strictly worse.
Last edited:
Yeah, no shit. That's why Rule 1 on Page 1 of the Guide to Dealing with Law Enforcement and embossed in gold is "Do Not Speak to Police without a Lawyer". And that's the magic rule everywhere. So when you're being interviewed by the police the magic words, if words must be recorded, are thus: "No comment"
I don't much care if you think it's proper or not. The only salient point is that you're free to say it, it's protected speech, and it could have consequences. And that situation is universally, legally acceptable throughout the Western world.
Alright, then let's transpose the example into exactly the same context: a criminal proceeding.
It's protected speech for a suspect to talk at length about how much of a good idea crime is. That isn't direct evidence that they committed the crime in question. And yet, look, there's a consequence: it obviously speaks to the suspect's character, and may well be brought up in court.