Minor clarifying insert: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion, > rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted -- > very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to > government. It may be that we can describe all rights ^in this way -- in terms of their being positive or negative -- > regardless of > whether they are the result of legislation or constitutional language, > but we have a unique foundation that renders the government > accountable to the people in that we established the States and the > Union on the basis of inalienable rights that are not subject to > government abrogation (except for very compelling reasons and by > narrowly tailored laws). > > > Seth > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Eric Smith <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Andrew Haley wrote: >>> >>> The problem with this claim is that it equivocates on the meaning of "a >>> right". There are at least two definitions of "a right" in this sense: moral >>> rights and legal rights. These are not the same. Moral rights are not in the >>> gift of any Government. While we may not have a legal right to run whatever >>> software we wish on hardware we own, it's not at all unreasonable to claim a >>> moral right to do so. Andrew. >> >> >> Orthogonal to moral vs. legal rights, there is also a distinction between >> positive and negative rights. If you have a positive right to something, >> that actually puts an obligation on someone to guarantee that you >> get/have/exercise the something. If you have a negative right to something, >> that only prohibits taking the something away from you, but doesn't put an >> obligation on anyone to guarantee that you get/have/exercise the something. >> >> For instance, in the US the right to use a printing press is protected by >> the First Amendment (freedom of speech), but it is a negative right, in that >> the government can't (except in very limited circumstances) do anything to >> prevent you from using a printing press, but the government is NOT obligated >> to provide you with a printing press. On the other hand, the right to an >> attorney for criminal defendants, protected by the Sixth Amendment, has been >> interpreted by SCOTUS a positive right, since if you cannot afford an >> attorney the government is obligated to provide one for you. >> >> I would claim that the moral right to run whatever software we wish on >> hardware we own is a negative right; it doesn't put any obligation on >> another party to help you do it. If you can hack up Fedora to run on a >> Nokia Windows phone, more power to you, but Nokia and Microsoft aren't >> obligated to help you do it, and aren't legally prohibited from doing things >> that make it difficult for you to exercise your moral right. Possibly in >> this example someone might consider Nokia and Microsoft to be infringing >> their moral right, but (in the US at least) they'd have no recourse. >> >> Eric >> >> >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
