Nailing it down...

[DavidOdden]

What about blackmail as coercive force?

To answer Jenni's question, we here call it "extortion". Various parts of the law do pass the relevant moral sniff-test, for example threatening to commit a felony or act of violence. One meta-objection that I have to the extortion statutes is the specific purpose requirements -- "with purpose to obtain any valuable thing or valuable benefit or to induce another to do an unlawful act". What this means is that if your purpose is "for the good of society" or some other non-profit motive, then the act is legal. Criminalizing the profit motive is clearly unacceptable in a rational, rights-respecting legal system. Setting that aside, there are two clauses that are not obvious qua proper legal restrictions. One is 2905.11(4) that you may not "Utter or threaten any calumny against any person", i.e. tell a lie, and 2905.11(5) says that you may not "Expose or threaten to expose any matter tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to damage any person’s personal or business repute, or to impair any person’s credit."

We have discussed defamation a number of times here, and I have not seen a satisfactory defense of the idea that defamation should be prohibited by law: noone has even managed to show that defamation constitutes initiation of force. 2905.11(5) is even worse, I maintain, because it means that you cannot legally expose a child-molesting Nazi for what he is, unless your motivation is non-profit.

I think the AS blackmail bit really sums up the proper response to blackmail -- as you say, "a rational individual should never act in a manner which exposes them to the risk of blackmail".

The only proper legal limit on blackmail is whether you have violated someone's rights in order to obtain the information. Breaking into a man's house and finding proof that he is a pedophile Nazi is a violation of his property rights, and we don't even have to care if the burglar is blackmailing the bastard, the break-in is sufficient. If a contractual relationship exists which entails keeping information secret (e.g. doctor-patient confidentiality, industrial non-disclosure clause) or a proper statutory restriction exists (vital military information in time of war), then any release of that information is actionable -- even if it is not extortion.

I'd love to throw around some scenarios, which are a even more distasteful than just the act of asking for money or threatening to reveal a secret affair (like in the case of Dr. Ferris's blackmail of Rearden):

1. Publishing nude pictures or information that would endanger someone (I believe this is a common form of blackmail against rich women in Muslim countries and India).

2. Asking for something other than money (i.e. sex).

On the second point, even conventional law isn't restricted to a money-only standard, so I refer you to my above point about the evilness of criminalizing actions done for profit where the same action done not for profit is perfectly okay. On the first point, assuming that you did not violate someone's rights to obtain the pictures and we are only considering the irrational reaction of the society, as I mentioned earlier, one of the classes of proper crimes is the "assisting in force" crime. What your case 1 scenario comes down to is knowingly assisting others to initiate force. In a sufficiently irrational society, stating "That man is a Jew" could be an immediate and unjust death sentence, and morally you should not do it. But in such a society, we are not talking about proper government and the rule of law, so invoking possibilities from Barbaria does not help elucidate the relationship between force and proper law.

I agree with Jenni that there is no "right to privacy". There is a right to property, from which privacy concepts can be derived. Knowledge of the facts of reality cannot be property. Invoking intellectual property misconstrues what is owned. The author of the book does not exclusively control the information contained in his work, he owns the right to copy an distribute the expression. What I own, if I write a book proving that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas, is that particular expression, and not the knowledge of reality. In order to exert control over knowledge of reality, I have to create enforceable contractual obligations -- non-disclosure clauses -- and physically guard my information so that it is impossible to obtain the information except by force. That is where the so-called "right to privacy" comes from.

[DavidOdden]

Point taken, are you suggesting that anyone who tries to commit murder should be tried with full fledged murder? Aren't you then trying to convict a man for a crime that was not in fact committed? Wouldn't this open such a legal system open to prosecuting thought crimes?

In reverse order, no, because attempt crimes have to go beyond just thinking about it: you must also act, even if the crime is not finalized. I would not be convicting a man for something he did not do, I would be convicting a man for actually doing something. Although I do not claim that "attempted murder" and "actual murder" are in all respects indistinguishable. They are both criminal acts prohibited and punishable under proper law, and both involve the initiation of force. ("Initiation of force" is a very literal expression, involving "starting the process"). The only two difference between an attempted act and an actual acts are (1) evidence -- it's harder to prove attempt compared to the fait accompli of an actual action and (2) punishment.

Judges interpret the simple words and sometimes give them unintended meanings and sometimes are too strict with the meaning.

There's a Latin expression covering that problem: stare decisis. There's also a very nice article by Tara Smith which addresses a foundational problem in interpretation, which shreds the subjectivist position of Scalia et al. If there are any future judges in my class, they will at least have read and internalized that article.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

There's a Latin expression covering that problem: stare decisis. There's also a very nice article by Tara Smith which addresses a foundational problem in interpretation, which shreds the subjectivist position of Scalia et al. If there are any future judges in my class, they will at least have read and internalized that article.

I'm just curious, but the implication is that you teach, and perhaps teach law?

I do agree that modern law does not necessarily have the proper basis of individual rights and upholding individual rights; and that we have a long ways to go in bringing back objective law.

Regarding blackmail and extortion, the question is this: Is the initiation of force or fraud involved in blackmailing someone? I think if they have information they have no right to, then yes, I think force and / or fraud are involved. And as I outlined above, extortion is at minimum covering up a crime, which is itself a crime.

I think in the Sherlock Holmes case, one can at least say that the blackmailer is intruding herself into the man's life when he doesn't want her there, which is the initiation of force. Of course, in this case, the man is trying to live a lie -- i.e. he never had an affair with someone in the lower class -- which is not moral of him. On the other hand, should his future wife be rationally concerned with that fact? I think you have the right to your reputation against libel and slander, but does one have a right to one's reputation against a truth? Or, to put it another way, if someone makes a change in their life for the better, should he have to defend himself against past mistakes for the rest of his life? and if someone continuously points out his past mistakes, can they be held legally responsible for the actions following from the exposure?

Again, though, I think we ought to discuss this in terms of an individual rights code of justice, and not some dictatorship. In the dictatorship, the blackmailer exposing someone for breaking an unjust law is adding and abetting the wholesale violation of individual rights -- and in that sense is initiating force indirectly against the one being blackmailed or extorted.

[JMeganSnow]

I think in the Sherlock Holmes case, one can at least say that the blackmailer is intruding herself into the man's life when he doesn't want her there, which is the initiation of force.

Someone "intruding into my life" is not an initiation of force, otherwise every human being on the *planet* is guilty of violating my rights just by *existing* when I'm in a bad mood and don't want to deal with anyone in any capacity. There's no possible way to define what constitutes one person's "life" that shouldn't be "intruded upon" other than utter whim.

You *can* however, delimit what is your property and thus the *places* where you can refuse intrusion. That's why privacy is a derivative of a right to property, heck, even preventing someone from seeing your genitals depends on having clothing (property) to cover them up.

The only difference between my earlier scenario, and, say, a gallery owner calling a good customer and saying "we got this painting that I was going to donate to the Met, but maybe you want to make me an offer instead" is the emotions involved, and the law should not take cognizance of anyone's feelings in determining whether there's been a crime.

[DavidOdden]

I'm just curious, but the implication is that you teach, and perhaps teach law?

I teach, linguistics, which I've parlayed into teaching a course on Language and Law.

Regarding blackmail and extortion, the question is this: Is the initiation of force or fraud involved in blackmailing someone? I think if they have information they have no right to, then yes, I think force and / or fraud are involved.

First, I want to remind everybody that "rights" are not a primitive concept in Objectivism: "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law". In Rand's view, rights are understood in terms of force -- force is not defined in terms of rights ("Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force"; "The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men"). Now my point here is that in order to determin if a man has a right to something, you must ascertain how he came to have it -- was it by force? If so, he does not have a right to take and keep the thing. That is the root consideration in determining if a person has a right to information -- definitely not whether some other person has particular wishes about the information. Since force is essential to the determination of whether you have a right, you cannot define force as anything that violates rights. Thus if you use force to obtain the information, you have violated a man's rights, and the discussion is over. If you obtain something -- anything -- without using force, you have a right to it, regardless of sad consequences for another party.

And as I outlined above, extortion is at minimum covering up a crime, which is itself a crime.

But it isn't: extortion is any threat to reveal disfavorable information, regardless of how the information was obtained but crucially involving profit motive.

I think you have the right to your reputation against libel and slander, but does one have a right to one's reputation against a truth?

I don't think you do. Now what I would like to see is a consistent defense of laws against defamation, because I do have the reaction that defamation is evil, just as unjustified praise is. But not every form of evil is properly subject to prohibition by law.

Again, though, I think we ought to discuss this in terms of an individual rights code of justice, and not some dictatorship.

I totally agree. It makes no sense to be asking what enforceable moral concepts would be law in a rational, rights-respecting society that was not a rational, rights-respecting society.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I totally agree. It makes no sense to be asking what enforceable moral concepts would be law in a rational, rights-respecting society that was not a rational, rights-respecting society.

I agree with this. I think part of the problem, as David has pointed out, is that there are some laws on the books that have not been totally ground in a rational philosophy of law. And I am not claiming that I have done that for every law. I do know that in principle, there ought not to be any laws not based upon the upholding of individual rights. In other words, the laws primary function is to make sure individual rights are not violated.

To get back to Megan, I agree that property rights are what gives rise to the right to privacy, and that it would make no sense to say that one has the right to privacy if one is out laying naked in the sun in one's back yard. I don't think one can say that another has no right to look at my property.

When it comes to others intruding into one's live, what I had in mind was things like stalking and harassing. One certainly has the right to walk around without being jumped and stabbed as in a robbery; but I guess part of the issue is does one have the right to walk around without being verbally accosted by others. Property rights certainly goes a long ways in settling this issue -- i.e. a particular mall, say, can have rules about harassing others while they are doing their shopping, and if you violate that, then you have violated the property rights of the owner of the mall. The sticking point comes when, say, one is walking or driving down a "public" road. Of course, in a fully capitalist country, there would be no public roads or sidewalks, and the owner could refuse access to those who are stalking and harassing others.

I certainly think that stalking and harassing ought to be illegal. That is, even on "public" roads and sidewalks which are open to all, one ought to be free to walk down them without having others come up to one and verbally abuse them. In other words, one would have the right to carry out one's business or pleasure, so long as one is not interfering with the rights of another. One cannot say that just because the roads or sidewalks are "public" that anything goes -- i.e. that the stalker and the harasser has just as much right to be there as does the guy minding his own business.

I do think that Megan's reply that everyone is interfering in her life when she is in a bad mood is ridiculous. You do not have to deal with others if you don't want to. There is a right of association (which can be traced back to property rights, which can then be traced back to the right to life). If you decide to sit in your room in a bad mood, no one has the right to interfere with that, and if you don't want to deal with others, then turn off your TV and your radio and your computer, it's that simple. Now, if someone came up to your window while you didn't want to be bothered, and then yelled at you that you were being lazy and wasn't fit for human existence, I claim they don't have the right to disturb the peace in that manner. Again, in a totally private property type of social system, the owners could say that you are not permitted to yell at others; but in our current system of some private and some "public" property, does someone have the right to stand in the middle of the street and yell at you that you are good for nothing for being lazy and not wanting to be bothered? I don't think so.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Now, if someone came up to your window while you didn't want to be bothered, and then yelled at you that you were being lazy and wasn't fit for human existence, I claim they don't have the right to disturb the peace in that manner.

I should clarify that this was not intended to be a personal insult to Megan. I get to the point sometimes when I don't want to be bothered, whether in a bad mood or not, and so I don't think someone is being lazy or good for nothing if they want to be left alone.

It was simply meant as an example of a form of harassment that occurs sometimes by the low-lifes that don't know how to stay out of other people's decisions to be left alone. It's happened to me in the past, and I don't think they have a right to interfere with my decision as to how to live my life.

Sorry Megan for any unintended implied insults.

[JMeganSnow]

You're still trying to merge the two contexts, though--public areas and privately owned property. The proper thing to do if you feel you're being harassed on a *private* road or in a *private* store or in a *private* parking lot--which is the *only kind that would exist* in a fully capitalist society--is to complain to the owner, because the rights and responsibilities involved are his, not yours. If he doesn't care that people are verbally harassing you or whatever, then there's nothing you can do about it except stop dealing with him, because the right of free association applies to him as well.

My example was a reductio ad absurdum, which you don't seem to have understood. There is no possible way that you can have a right to be "left alone" while in or on someone else's property without violating the property-owner's rights. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works and the fact that you may or may not like the idea doesn't change it.

Like many things about freedom, people tend to get freaked-out by the idea that they may lose their theoretical legal "power" to control other people in certain ways--even if the control they desire is, in theory, benevolent. In practice, however, it doesn't work that way because peace and quiet are valuable to almost everyone and given the choice between making three assholes happy and making five thousand customers happy, anyone with even two brain cells to rub together is going to choose making the five thousand customers happy.

It's just like how having no socialized medical care *may* result in you getting into an accident and having no means to pay for care. In practice, this isn't how it works. There are charities, there are loans--the Catch 22 that people irrationally fear is not how the world works. It is the government that brings the Catch 22 into existence, not freedom.

So, I think we've nailed down the concept of force pretty thoroughly here--it is physical force. There's no such thing as legally actionable emotional force (a la blackmail or "harrassment") without some corresponding *physical* force to make it illegal.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Like many things about freedom, people tend to get freaked-out by the idea that they may lose their theoretical legal "power" to control other people in certain ways--even if the control they desire is, in theory, benevolent.

Actually, my personal policy is live and let live or live and let die. It is only when my rights are being violated that I want to control others in the sense of getting them out of my life. I certainly have no ambition to be a bounty hunter or anything like that. The thing is that I don't go around bothering anybody at all, and then suddenly to become bothered extensively pointed out to me that some people just want to intrude into other people's lives, for whatever excuse they have. I don't think some of my neighbors like what I write, but I have the right to free speech and they have no right to force me into doing something else. I think it is one more instance where civilization is cracking at the seams; and as I have said before, it ain't going to stop me anyhow.

[Jake_Ellison]

It is only when my rights are being violated that I want to control others in the sense of getting them out of my life.

I think the main issue is defining what the life part of that statement means. I think in a capitalist society it should simply mean property (including any threats of physical force or intimidating behaviour-such as stalking- against a person or his property), but nothing more.

For instance if someone decides to continuously send unwanted mail to someone, stand outside his house or place of business for the purpose of disrupting his life or business, that should qualify as a threat or stalking. The law should assess the seriousness of that threat, and intervene when it is proper. (when they are threatening enough that it warrants arresting someone, or at least restricting his movements via a restraining order)

However, someone who continuously writes articles in the media or posts on a forum (distributes flyers etc.) about some person or business, whether they are true or not, that is not a threat.

[JMeganSnow]

For instance if someone decides to continuously send unwanted mail to someone, stand outside his house or place of business for the purpose of disrupting his life or business, that should qualify as a threat or stalking.

"Unwanted" and "disrupting" are utterly subjective terms in this context because they amount to saying "if you feel like it, you can take legal action". I don't want *bills*, but I doubt my creditors care! You have to formulate your statement of the principle in such a way that it's objectively definable, which "disrupting someone's life" is NOT.

If someone is not actually making any sort of threat and they have the permission of the property owner to, say, stand on the sidewalk in front of your business with a picket sign saying "this grocer sells tainted meat!", what crime are they committing?

[Jake_Ellison]

"Unwanted" and "disrupting" are utterly subjective terms in this context because they amount to saying "if you feel like it, you can take legal action". I don't want *bills*, but I doubt my creditors care! You have to formulate your statement of the principle in such a way that it's objectively definable, which "disrupting someone's life" is NOT.

If someone is not actually making any sort of threat and they have the permission of the property owner to, say, stand on the sidewalk in front of your business with a picket sign saying "this grocer sells tainted meat!", what crime are they committing?

You're right, I should've said "could be a threat". I didn't mean to define what constitutes a threat, I was just looking for an instance of one: I.E. your sign example, if the person is outside my home all the time, and the sign says "I will never leave you alone, I wish you were dead." . While the sign itself isn't a threat ( it's a general statement protected by free speech), I think the whole of his actions make him a big enogh threat to warrant some preventive action. (maybe a restraining order)

[DavidOdden]

You're right, I should've said "could be a threat".

But a threat is a relationship between a certain knowledge of fact and reasonable conclusion about future outcome. A threat does not entail rights violation or use of force, and you can threaten to do something that you have a right to do. A "threat" is actionable only when it is a threat to do something by force. A threat to kill a person or to invade their home is a threat to initiate force.

[JMeganSnow]

Hmm, now there's an interesting thought--maybe someone else (probably David) knows more about this than I do, but what exactly is necessary for you to file for a restraining order? Is there some probable cause requirement or can you just get one if someone is annoying the heck out of you?

From what I've heard (which may or may not be true), most restraining orders aren't properly enforced due to the logistical difficulty involved, but that may just mean that a rational society would have *more specific* restraining orders.

A somewhat amusing option that occurs to me is that if you get a restraining order for probable cause, you have the option to request that the restrainee pay for you to get a personal weapon and training--that alone would probably deter casual assholes, because they know that if you shoot them after the order is issued, the assumption is going to be that they provoked it. My experience has been that scary escalation works a lot better against bullies than Mom telling them to stay away.

[DavidOdden]

Hmm, now there's an interesting thought--maybe someone else (probably David) knows more about this than I do, but what exactly is necessary for you to file for a restraining order? Is there some probable cause requirement or can you just get one if someone is annoying the heck out of you?

The court must be induced to order a person to refrain from an action, on the grounds that the action will violate a person's "rights". We know what "rights" means these days. You have to fill out some forms and file them with the court; the judge will or will not issue the order, depending. ("On what?", one may wonder). The difficult question, which I can't answer and which wold require in-depth knowledge of actual practice, is the extent to whether courts are actually willing to limit the freedom to act by one person, based on their effect by another. I believe that what controls such decisions is, to a large extent, a misguided understanding of "public", that is, any property not exclusively used by someone is "public", and the court will grant a motion involving actions "in public" (but not in private -- unless we're talking about trespass where you invade a person's private property). Because you habitually exclude others from your residence (even if you occasionally allow others to enter), your home is "private". Because the apartment building which contains your apartment does not habitually exclude others, it is "public" -- this is separate from whether the property is owned by a person or the state. There is a connection, that to some extent, if you own property, you can make that property private or public as you will (where not prohibited by law), by generally prohibiting entrance except by special permission (as in a gated community).

Thus you may display a poster stating "John Doe is an evil bastard" if it is entirely inside your property. You probably may not display said poster at the boundary between your property and "public" property (on the outside door of your property), or entirely off of your property (on the walls of the hall in the apartment building). The same would hold of utterly public property, for example in a government court building. I am betting that judges would invoke all kinds of social-effect theories to determine if it is restrainable harassment to put a Doe-bastard poster on the door of your apartment if it is inside the building.

A countervaling consideration would be whether you were engaging in political expression, therefore a sign saying "Barack Obama is an evil bastard" could not rightly be prohibited, given the First Amendment. I am betting that there is nontrivial variation in whether courts are willing to restrain "possibly political" harassment, for example can you display signs denouncing a "public person" (president, senator, major CEO) in different "public" locations (sidewalks outside downtown office buildings, sidewalks outside private residences -- either at 1600 Penn. Ave, or elsewhere).

A private individual has the greatest power to prevent rights-respecting expression in "public". And yeah, enforcement of even legitimate ones is a problem. A little-appreciated problem is insincere restraining orders: A gets an order requiring B to stay away, and then has regular social relations with B. A should be jailed for initiation of force under color of law.

[Tenure]

D.O: I'm a bit surprised by your stance on the public/private relationship thing. It was my understanding that in "Thought Control Part III", the justification for laws against public nudity and other similar things (large posters of naked people in a place where one would not expect to see them), was based on the idea that you must be allowed the right to 'look away'. Surely the whole concept of 'public' spaces is that people in these areas are here to, if its a street with shops on, do some shopping, or if its a local park, enjoy the sun - not to have people presenting them with things that will directly offend them.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think I probably have not expressed some things as well as I should, but one thing that has to be kept in mind is that property rights are not the most fundamental right; the right to life is the most fundamental right. That is, the right to use one's mind to live one's life is the basis of having property rights, since man uses his mind to create or to earn property. In other words, one could not use property rights to suddenly announce that it is OK to murder Joe on my property, say, once he is inside the property boundaries. One cannot do this legally or morally because his right to life supersedes the property rights of the owner of the property who wants to murder him. Joe could rightfully be kicked off the property at the owner's discretion, but he couldn't be murdered. He could be killed in self-defense, if that became necessary; and, at least in some states, he could be killed for trespassing if sufficiently warned to stay off the property. But one cannot say that once you are on my property, I have total control over your life, say to the point of murdering him or making him a slave because he is on my property.

As an example of what happened to me once, and think it is a continuation of what was going on in the summer of 2005 when I was being continuously harassed, one day when coming home from work these guys across the street yelled, "We aren't going to let you do it! We got a gun!" This was clearly a personal threat to me, so I called the police on them. Had they been more explicit, such as stating that they had a gun and were going to shoot me as I was entering my door, I would have had the right to shoot them in self-defense right then and there. In this case, they were not violating my property rights nor the property rights of their apartment complex nor mine, but they were violating my right to life.

So, I guess along those lines, does one have the right to not be harassed for something he writes? I would say yes. Now, if they want to come up on this board (within the ground rules) and engage me intellectually, I wouldn't be against that at all. But I am definitely against them yelling at me in the middle of the night, which if nothing else is disturbing the peace -- and the police agree with me on this. Generally, it's a nuisance more than anything else, but they do not have the right to be a nuisance to me. If I could clearly identify who they are, they would already be in jail or fined. But I don't want to escalate it by going outside while they are yelling at me, and if I point a gun at them, I will be the one going to jail. There is a no trespassing sign on the apartment property, but I can't enforce that short of complaining to the property manager or the police, which I have done, and the police want to catch them.

In other words, I'm claiming that the right to free speech does not include being a general nuisance to someone at their person, in the sense of continuously following them around and making verbal comments on what they are expressing. In some cases, it is a violation of property rights, in that they are coming onto the property to make their announcements to me. In the past they had made announcements over my car radio while I was driving, which may or may not have been a violation of property rights (the rights of whoever owned those airwaves); but had they merely driven up to my car and yelled into it, that would definitely be harassment; just as it is harassment for them to come up to my apartment and yell at me, even if they are on the property legally.

[DavidOdden]

D.O: I'm a bit surprised by your stance on the public/private relationship thing.

Let's not confuse my stance with my report of the facts. I'm saying how things are (as I understand them), now, in the US. My stance is that a property owner has the right to "semi-privatize" their property with appropriate warnings, for example sex clubs in a sex-mall which is labeled in advance of entry. What he is doing is saying "This property is publically accessible, with this exception".

The question of whether certain guarantees are implied by saying "This is a public area" is separate, and any reasonable person would understand that "being unrestrictedly public" implies that you won't be endangered, exposed to revolting images, or suddenly shown live fornication. There are signs in Amsterdam that say "But in this neighborhood..", which amounts to a general restriction on the "otherwise public" aspect of being in a city.

[JMeganSnow]

I think I probably have not expressed some things as well as I should, but one thing that has to be kept in mind is that property rights are not the most fundamental right; the right to life is the most fundamental right.

Yes, I know, but privacy is a derivative of property, so the right to property is the fundamental operating principle when talking about privacy issues. Having the right to life does *not* mean that you have the right to have whatever *kind* of life you happen to want, only that others may not *kill* you.

In this case, they were not violating my property rights nor the property rights of their apartment complex nor mine, but they were violating my right to life.

They weren't killing or trying to kill you, so no, they weren't violating your right to life. And you can't know whether they were violating property rights unless you tried to contact the *owners* of the properties in question and ask whether they considered that permissible behavior. I'd be willing to bet that if you'd complained, they'd have said something, at least, esp. if you were a good tenant.

We had a discussion elsewhere talking about noise pollution where the principle that if something obnoxious (shouting, smells, whatever) is detectable from your property by normal means (i.e. without special cameras or sound amplifiers), it's an intrusion on your property and potentially actionable. Did you consider taking that tack?

So, I guess along those lines, does one have the right to not be harassed for something he writes? I would say yes.

There's no way to say because "harassed" is an undefined term--aspects of it are handled under actual rights violations, and aspects of it are subjective and imaginary. It's a package-deal combining some things that should be illegal and some things that are just annoying. I'm not going to subsume both under the same heading, and that's final.

[DavidOdden]

BTW, the topic of privacy under law is the topic of Amy Peikoff's USC dissertation "The right to privacy: reductionism reconsidered". As she states (p. 187):

What I am arguing via examples like these is that, in a type of society envisioned by Rand, the way one achieves privacy is by means of control over materials objects or access to locations - in other words, by means of one's property. Recall that, on Rand's view, one may not control or proscribe tge actions of others, so long as those actions do not amount to the initiation of physical force against others. Thus any law telling others what they might look at or listen to, either while the are one their own property, or on property allowing public access, would, according to Rand, be an improper law. One has the right to earn, through one's own productive effort, the resources necessary to create states of privacy. However, he does not have the right to demand that others "leave him alone" - i.e., refrain from observing him in any way - without earning a right of exclusive access to some physical location.

Edited December 29, 2008 by DavidOdden

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

However, he does not have the right to demand that others "leave him alone" - i.e., refrain from observing him in any way - without earning a right of exclusive access to some physical location.

I'd have to read the entire article in question, but on the face of it, I agree that one can only claim the right to privacy if one is on one's own property or on the property of another that prevents access to those not wanted. That is, I agree that the right to privacy in this sense is based upon property rights, and that if one wants privacy, then do it in private. The example given earlier of someone running down the road naked cannot claim that his privacy is violated if he is seen running down the road naked. He put it out there in public, so he cannot complain that people are looking.

I'm not sure that my particular case of being yelled at while I'm in my apartment or being harassed while in my car is merely the issue of noise pollution. Noise pollution would be someone driving down the street off my apartment with a very loud engine, especially late at night. Or if someone cranks up their music next door so loud that I cannot ignore it; that would be noise pollution. But in my case, there are specific people who are yelling loudly at me personally -- it's not just someone being loud and obnoxious in the neighborhood (which does happen at times, but that is not my specific complaint). I have a closed door and a closed window between them and I demarcating my range of privacy and my range of not being forcibly intruded upon by those outside my apartment. I did not invite them over to have a discussion, and me writing what I write is not an open invitation to have a discussion with me, except under certain conditions -- i.e. they can take me on intellectually at a mutually convenient time and place, or they can login and get involved in the discussion. But them yelling at me through my door is a violation of my private space that I pay for -- i.e. my apartment interior -- and I haven't invited them to do that in any manner at all. So, yes, in that sense they are violating my property rights.

And I think they are being moronic cowards anyhow. Fortunately, it doesn't happen all that often these days, and I know they are trying to intimidate me. The police have been alerted and I look forward to the day when they are arrested.

[JMeganSnow]

I'm not sure that my particular case of being yelled at while I'm in my apartment or being harassed while in my car is merely the issue of noise pollution. Noise pollution would be someone driving down the street off my apartment with a very loud engine, especially late at night. Or if someone cranks up their music next door so loud that I cannot ignore it; that would be noise pollution. But in my case, there are specific people who are yelling loudly at me personally -- it's not just someone being loud and obnoxious in the neighborhood (which does happen at times, but that is not my specific complaint). I have a closed door and a closed window between them and I demarcating my range of privacy and my range of not being forcibly intruded upon by those outside my apartment.

I didn't say that it is "noise pollution", I said it falls under the same general category and is actionable under the same principle.

If I've learned anything about the idea of jurisprudence, it's that you NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES invent a "new" offense to cover a situation that is already completely covered under an existing principle just because you can. There's already a principle existing whereby you could seek legal redress for your problems, so you don't need to invent an entirely new category of crime just to comfort yourself.

I sympathize that your situation was uncomfortable and unpleasant, but it's no worse than what I went through in junior high school with being physically trapped on school grounds where people would follow me around chanting "devil worshipper". If I can get over it, you can too, and I was sure as hell a lot less equipped to deal with it at the time than you were. Stop riding this one episode in your life and start thinking about the principles again.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I sympathize that your situation was uncomfortable and unpleasant, but it's no worse than what I went through in junior high school with being physically trapped on school grounds where people would follow me around chanting "devil worshipper". If I can get over it, you can too, and I was sure as hell a lot less equipped to deal with it at the time than you were. Stop riding this one episode in your life and start thinking about the principles again.

I don't think I've been thinking about that episode outside of principles, and I wasn't trying to come up with some new category of offenses. I thank you for your sympathies, though, and it is too bad any of us have to go through something like that, whether in childhood or adulthood. The difference between being a child and being an adult, however, is that as an adult I don't have to put up with it, and I don't think anyone ought to put up with it -- regardless of what one calls it (i.e. harassment, noise pollution, stalking, bullying, or whatever). I do think pinning it down in terms of principles is important, and it is important to realize that one's rights are being violated in such circumstances (within certain delimitations that we have discussed).

By the way, I am not trying to bring this up in order to get sympathies. I originally brought it up in the "admirer or stalker" thread in order to get information as to who was involved. There were a lot of people involved and I was trying to find out if anyone had known about this episode so I could take the appropriate legal action against them. However, as I discussed it, it seems as if many people just think maybe it didn't really happen or that I am blowing it out of proportion. It was more than just being picked on as a kid, which is bad enough and shouldn't happen, it was real criminal activity.

You are right, however, that it was something that happened in the past (and still occurs occasionally now), and I need to learn to deal with it and continue to live my life to the fullest. But part of dealing with it is to understand that what happened was criminal and that I don't have to put up with it. It's not something I should just brush off and say, "Oh Well..." And since I have evidence that some of them are reading what I write, I need to make it clear to them that I am defending my rights and that they will not get away with violating my rights.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here is an interesting case regarding nudity and the expectation of privacy. A man decides that he wants to videotape his girlfriend and himself while they are nude together and when they are making love. She didn't know she was being taped, and there is no indication that he was going to show them to anyone else. The court case is about the privacy issue, and I admit that he was being underhanded to not tell her she was being taped while nude. He argued that she had no reasonable expectation of privacy, since she agreed to be nude with him and to have sex. I certainly think she would have the expectation of privacy with regard to others not present, but can she claim to have an expectation of privacy if he never shows it to anyone else? I certainly think deception was involved, in that he should have asked her first before taping, and that she could demand that the tapes be destroyed and never see him again. Did he violate an implicit contract? If he knew she would say no if asked, and he did it anyhow, is this fraud on his part? Were her individual rights violated in any way?