2/ I suggest that these things aren't obvious from first principles, and ALWAYS need negotiation to settle defaults and norms. Handwave at Coase theorem here. People ALWAYS have a desire to say things, and they ALWAYS have a desire to make graves sacred. So, there's conflict
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ The baby libertarian argument here (and I've been on both sides of it 100 times) tries to define property rights as absolute. There are these magic vertical lines going from the center of the earth to outer space, and anything I do on my property is absolutely fine.
Show this thread -
4/ BRO, I'm just emitting sound waves. Not MY fault that they propagate across the property line. BRO, I'm just emitting photons. If you don't like it, don't look. BRO, I'm just following you 23 hours a day as you walk on roads and sidewalks. If you don't like it, don't look
Show this thread -
5/ Society can organize norms and defaults one way or the other. The interesting thing about the Coase theorem is that it acknowledges this. So getting to the particular of a graveyard - there's an interesting question. What's the null hypothesis / norm?
Show this thread -
6/ Graveyards are often privately owned, and there are contractual expectations: right of access, right of maintenance, etc. So this is, perhaps, really just a contract law question, not a 1A question. ...but even if the contract allows the middle finger headstone, that's that
Show this thread -
7/ as far as the LEGAL question goes, but it's not trivially resolved as a social question. The problem with libertarian autism (and I say that as someone who is a libertarian and an autist) is that it prefers theory to gathering facts. Theory should FOLLOW facts, not precede
Show this thread -
8/ If you poll 1,000 people, and 999 of them suggest that they would be offended if they buried their spouse or child and then later a headstone went in 20 feet away with a picture of a middle finger, then that's a fact about human nature that must be acknowledged.
Show this thread -
9/ There's a quote I'm going to mangle, from the Jewish study of the Torah (cites appreciated, please chime in) in the direction of "the Law does not exist for God; the Law exists for man". Law exists to create utility, not to reify High Autist Theory.
Show this thread -
10/ Side thread on High Theoryhttps://twitter.com/MorlockP/status/1315646152331726849 …
Show this thread -
11/ So anyway, I don't think "don't look" is the final answer to every speech-implicating area of social discord. It is good and proper that we have churches with one code, streets with another, and red light districts with a third.
Show this thread -
12/ People should not talk loudly about anal sex gang bangs at childrens' playgrounds. People should not police F-bombs on the sidewalk outside a porno shop at 11pm. Social norms which distinguish between these are good. Law exists to serve man.
Show this thread -
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.