class Notes Part 4 - P H L Notes Pa r t Th ree 1. The L...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PHL Notes Part Three 1. The Liberty Limiting Principles 1. Harm to others 1. Restrict your freedom so you can't do things that are harmful to other people 2. Protect each other from infringement of liberty too 3. Most people agree to this, but 2 questions: 1. How harmful must an act be? 2. How much evidence is needed before outlawing? (how well do we know it?) 4. Some things must be taken, they are commonsensically harmful (obviously) 5. Other things not so obviously harmful 1. Ex: smoking (obviously harmful to self, but only speaking about others), many places outlawed smoking inside public places 2. Harm to self (strongest says Krecz) 1. Outlaw people harming themselves 1. Laws against suicide (in TX law against assisted suicide, don’t know about regular) 2. Seatbelt laws 3. Doing drugs 2. Hard for Krecz to come by an instance where it is wrong to harm myself (kill myself) 1. Why don’t I have the right? 3. Paternalistically 1. Bridge out, signs and road blocks to keep someone from falling off 2. Doesn’t prevent liberty, law gives more liberty by saving my life 3. Looking at paternalistic laws that truly limit liberty (?) 4. Penalties for paternalistic laws are almost always lighter than if you do harm to others 3. Offence 1. If enough of the community are offended/embarrassed/etc. by the act, then the legislature can outlaw it
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2. Krecz finds many things offensive, but doesn’t think they can be outlawed 1. What about the things said about Obama after he was elected, hate speech, etc.? 3. If the freedom lost is small then the offence principle works, if the freedom lost is great can't 4. Immorality 1. If enough people think that an act is immoral, that’s its just wrong, then we can outlaw it 2. Introduces a tyranny of majority 3. If you say its immoral and the reason you give is that is harms someone, that’s ok because not specifically referring to the immorality principle, referring to harm to others 5. Either the principle you're using is false or it does not apply (anti-censorship people say) (Altman excluded) 4/21/10 2. The 1967-68 (Johnson-Nixon) committee report 1. Johnson started a committee, all kinds of people, asking, do you think that our laws that outlaw pornography are justified? 1. Came back and said, no, think they should be done away with 3. The Attorney General’s Report (1986) 1. Reagan ? 2. Different report with different conclusion 3. Contradicts earlier report 1. Separate pornography into 3 categories 1. Inoculate stuff 2. Degrading 3. Violent and degrading 2. Could have laws that prohibit degrading and violent matter (child porn worst, can't use anyway)
Background image of page 2
1. Recommended that some was censorable 2. Supreme Court through it back into the lap of the community to decide what was degrading/violent 3. Early reports said don’t bother trying to censor, waste of type 4. Don’t confuses Supreme Court cases with ___? 5.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 13

class Notes Part 4 - P H L Notes Pa r t Th ree 1. The L...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online