What's a right?

[Viper1j]

I've been watching the Congressional hearing, where they're basically raking big tech CEOs over the coals for failing to "protect the children".

And I started thinking, not even poor adults have a "right" to the Internet. Feel free to check the Constitution for yourself. If adults don't have it, at which point did kids get a right to the Internet?

I'm not insensitive to little girls weighing 60 pounds, because they think that makes them look "pretty" (anorexia nervosa), but why would any responsible parent not take it away?

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and I know how to put the filters on, but whatever happened to the word NO?

NO, you cannot have a Facebook account.
NO, you cannot post pictures to Instagram.
NO, you will not be on twitter.

Is it me? Am I missing something? Or have the inmates been put in charge of the asylum?

There is no constitutional right to the Internet.

 

[HomerJS]

And you forbid you kids from hanging out with their friends.

 

[eelw]

Yeah the highlights of these showboating congress critters with the gallery clapping is eye rolling. But with that being said, these social media companies are monetizing off of today’s impressionable youth.

 

[HomerJS]

There are lots of things we limit to kids.

What if you had to be 16 to access social media? If you are mature enough to drive, you can handle it my then.

 

[dullard]

There is no constitutional right to the Internet.

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).

 

[Viper1j]

There are lots of things we limit to kids.

What if you had to be 16 to access social media? If you are mature enough to drive, you can handle it my then.

Do we need congressional hearings with the CEOs of Anheuser-Busch, Miller's, and Coors?

All because little Johnny stole his daddy's sixpack to get little Suzy drunk in the back of the car so he could score?

 

[Viper1j]

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).

Air is free. Speech is free

Then so should be the Internet.

 

[dullard]

Air is free. Speech is free

Then so should be the Internet.

Speech is free, but even then it has limitations. There is a time, space, and context to your freedom of speech. Make terroristic threats, threaten the president, or shout "fire" in a theater are all classic examples of limits to the freedom of speech. Same with requirement for permits for rallies--you have the right to speak but within a reasonable permit's limitation (and the permitting process cannot be based on what you are proposing to speak nor who is proposing to speak).

A similar argument could be made that there could be reasonable limitations on the internet as long as the limitations are not based upon the speech but upon other reasonable means.

 

[Moonbeam]

Rights cannot be defined. They can only be known and that only by people in possession of their full genetic capacity for oceanic experience love born from our human gift of empathy. Only those who understand this understand the meaning of inalienable and why rights are vast and innumerable. This is, of course, only my opinion

 

[Moonbeam]

Speech is free, but even then it has limitations. There is a time, space, and context to your freedom of speech. Make terroristic threats, threaten the president, or shout "fire" in a theater are all classic examples of limits to the freedom of speech. Same with requirement for permits for rallies--you have the right to speak but within a reasonable permit's limitation (and the permitting process cannot be based on what you are proposing to speak nor who is proposing to speak).

A similar argument could be made that there could be reasonable limitations on the internet as long as the limitations are not based upon the speech but upon other reasonable means.

You are trying, I think, to accommodate between to realities. Fear driven authoritarians will always try to limit the rights of others while the ignorant and thoughtless will use their freedoms to harm themselves.

 

[pcgeek11]

I've been watching the Congressional hearing, where they're basically raking big tech CEOs over the coals for failing to "protect the children".

And I started thinking, not even poor adults have a "right" to the Internet. Feel free to check the Constitution for yourself. If adults don't have it, at which point did kids get a right to the Internet?

I'm not insensitive to little girls weighing 60 pounds, because they think that makes them look "pretty" (anorexia nervosa), but why would any responsible parent not take it away?

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and I know how to put the filters on, but whatever happened to the word NO?

NO, you cannot have a Facebook account.
NO, you cannot post pictures to Instagram.
NO, you will not be on twitter.

Is it me? Am I missing something? Or have the inmates been put in charge of the asylum?

There is no constitutional right to the Internet.

Strange, but I agree with you.

Parents are more responsible that the Big Tech Wieners.

 

[hal2kilo]

And you forbid you kids from hanging out with their friends.

Yep, limiting what your kids can watch in your home is great, until they go over to one of their friends house and there is no control. Those days are long over for me, thank goodness.

 

[dullard]

You are trying, I think, to accommodate between to realities. Fear driven authoritarians will always try to limit the rights of others while the ignorant and thoughtless will use their freedoms to harm themselves.

I would say that it isn't me doing the accommodation, but the whole system of government that has been set up that way. I'm just trying to convey that message to these forums.

You are correct, there are multiple clashing realities. You have the right to freedom of speech. I have the right to not be slandered and libeled. So, there is a conflict between those two rights if you so choose to slander or libel me. One right must trump the other right. Our government has chosen that my right to freedom from slander and libel trumps your right to slander or libel me with your speech. Hence, there are some small (but still significant) limitations to your right to the freedom of speech.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

To me specifically a right is something inalienable, and isn't even guaranteed by the government. It's defined by we the people as written by our founders that it exists, regardless of our governmental structure, and shall always exist to all who read and understand the right. Anyone's attempt to take it away is done so illegally and without merit, and is subject to resistance to any degree necessary. This includes those outside the bounds of the US, though you're on your own securing your ability to defend those rights.

In the US, any attempt to infringe on those rights is strictly prohibited and subject to an extreme response.

 

[APU_Fusion]

If only the outrage for social media ceo’s was the same as the gun manufacturing ceo’s. Funny how that works. is the 1st amendment less a right than 2nd?

 

[dank69]

I've been watching the Congressional hearing, where they're basically raking big tech CEOs over the coals for failing to "protect the children".

And I started thinking, not even poor adults have a "right" to the Internet. Feel free to check the Constitution for yourself. If adults don't have it, at which point did kids get a right to the Internet?

I'm not insensitive to little girls weighing 60 pounds, because they think that makes them look "pretty" (anorexia nervosa), but why would any responsible parent not take it away?

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and I know how to put the filters on, but whatever happened to the word NO?

NO, you cannot have a Facebook account.
NO, you cannot post pictures to Instagram.
NO, you will not be on twitter.

Is it me? Am I missing something? Or have the inmates been put in charge of the asylum?

There is no constitutional right to the Internet.

It isn't social media that is the problem. It's social media without parental guidance. Like anything else without parental guidance.

 

[woolfe9998]

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).

The liberty interest described in the 5a and 14A means they can't throw you in jail without a trial. It's never been interpreted as a broad right to do whatever you want. Remember all those guys who were claiming they had a Constitutional right to not wear a mask during COVID? That's what interpreting things like that too broadly will lead to.

So far as speech, you aren't guaranteed a specific platform upon which to deliver your speech.

 

[ivwshane]

I've been watching the Congressional hearing, where they're basically raking big tech CEOs over the coals for failing to "protect the children".

And I started thinking, not even poor adults have a "right" to the Internet. Feel free to check the Constitution for yourself. If adults don't have it, at which point did kids get a right to the Internet?

I'm not insensitive to little girls weighing 60 pounds, because they think that makes them look "pretty" (anorexia nervosa), but why would any responsible parent not take it away?

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and I know how to put the filters on, but whatever happened to the word NO?

NO, you cannot have a Facebook account.
NO, you cannot post pictures to Instagram.
NO, you will not be on twitter.

Is it me? Am I missing something? Or have the inmates been put in charge of the asylum?

There is no constitutional right to the Internet.

Yes you are missing something…who taught parents how to parent? Common sense parenting would imply that it’s a common method that people learned from previous educational experiences, whether from schools, parents, or their community. I’d argue that it’s not something people learn from school or their community and it’s not something everyone learns from their parents.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Getting my 11yo daughter a Nokia brick for a phone has been a kind of fascinating experience.

My wife and I have been really big on limiting screen time and access to social media for the kids and the difference between them and their friends (and embarrassingly even me) are huge. They get some videogame/cartoon time on the weekend, and some couch cozies before bed on weekdays (watch some maker videos or cooking shows or whatever) but that's it. No hours whiled away in front of a screen.

My daughter (and son, but he's not the focus of this) is super engaged with the world, never bored, always finding something to do whether it's crafting or drawing or playing music or reading a book. Her friends immediately retreat into their phones while waiting to be picked up from the library (much to my daughter's chagrin) while my kid will go use the maker space to craft little keychains and doilies.

There was a big blowup in the parent group a while ago about some bullying over social media of one of the kids in the group (interestingly the only boy being bullied by the girls, but that's an aside). My daughter had no idea, and neither did we, and we were none the worse for it.

If someone is talking shit about my kid on social media, then she's completely separate from it, it can't hurt or affect her. If they have the balls to talk shit to her in real life, then we can deal with it as it comes.

Just gotta have some tiger balls and assume strength in your kids and be a fucking parent. It's not going to solve all the problems by a longshot, but God damn does it reduce the variables for sure.

 

[ivwshane]

Getting my 11yo daughter a Nokia brick for a phone has been a kind of fascinating experience.

My wife and I have been really big on limiting screen time and access to social media for the kids and the difference between them and their friends (and embarrassingly even me) are huge. They get some videogame/cartoon time on the weekend, and some couch cozies before bed on weekdays (watch some maker videos or cooking shows or whatever) but that's it. No hours whiled away in front of a screen.

My daughter (and son, but he's not the focus of this) is super engaged with the world, never bored, always finding something to do whether it's crafting or drawing or playing music or reading a book. Her friends immediately retreat into their phones while waiting to be picked up from the library (much to my daughter's chagrin) while my kid will go use the maker space to craft little keychains and doilies.

There was a big blowup in the parent group a while ago about some bullying over social media of one of the kids in the group (interestingly the only boy being bullied by the girls, but that's an aside). My daughter had no idea, and neither did we, and we were none the worse for it.

If someone is talking shit about my kid on social media, then she's completely separate from it, it can't hurt or affect her. If they have the balls to talk shit to her in real life, then we can deal with it as it comes.

Just gotta have some tiger balls and assume strength in your kids and be a fucking parent. It's not going to solve all the problems by a longshot, but God damn does it reduce the variables for sure.

And where did this parenting technique come from? Where did you learn it?

 

[HomerJS]

We put age limits on alcohol, why can't we do the same for social media?

From what I am seeing the logic is, just be better parents and we can remove alcohol age limits. Not advocating that BTW

 

[Viper1j]

We put age limits on alcohol, why can't we do the same for social media?

From what I am seeing the logic is, just be better parents and we can remove alcohol age limits. Not advocating that BTW

Why not? The reward for getting dad a beer used to be a sip.

I have yet to get a DUI.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would say that it isn't me doing the accommodation, but the whole system of government that has been set up that way. I'm just trying to convey that message to these forums.

You are correct, there are multiple clashing realities. You have the right to freedom of speech. I have the right to not be slandered and libeled. So, there is a conflict between those two rights if you so choose to slander or libel me. One right must trump the other right. Our government has chosen that my right to freedom from slander and libel trumps your right to slander or libel me with your speech. Hence, there are some small (but still significant) limitations to your right to the freedom of speech.

I would say that it isn't me doing the accommodation, but the whole system of government that has been set up that way. I'm just trying to convey that message to these forums.

You are correct, there are multiple clashing realities. You have the right to freedom of speech. I have the right to not be slandered and libeled. So, there is a conflict between those two rights if you so choose to slander or libel me. One right must trump the other right. Our government has chosen that my right to freedom from slander and libel trumps your right to slander or libel me with your speech. Hence, there are some small (but still significant) limitations to your right to the freedom of speech.

I agree. By saying you were trying to accommodate between where one right ends and another's begins I meant that you were trying to express that such conflicts arise and that an accommodation has to be made to determine how that line should be drawn. It is typical that such lines are drawn not by people experienced in how people are wont to behave with an eye to the public's best interest. These kind of issues fascinate me.

 

[cytg111]

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.

 

[dank69]

We put age limits on alcohol, why can't we do the same for social media?

From what I am seeing the logic is, just be better parents and we can remove alcohol age limits. Not advocating that BTW

Works for Europe with wine.