Falun Gong's Attitudes on Freedom of Speech, Public Interests and Human Rights
“ RIGHTS ” v. “ INTERESTS ”
description
Transcript of “ RIGHTS ” v. “ INTERESTS ”
“RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS”
• We’ll use “rights” to refer to what the legal system allows parties to do.– Need to point to specific authority for right
asserted. E.g.:– Migrant workers on land have right to
access to certain outsiders. Shack. – Tedesco had no right to exclude Ds.
Shack.
“RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS”
• “Rights” = what legal system allows.
• Can’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be. – E.g., Why do you think Shack is wrongly
decided?– Owners have the right to exclude all.
“RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS”
• “Rights” = what legal system allows.
• Can’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be. – E.g., Why do you think Shack is wrongly
decided?– Owners have the right to exclude all.– Owners should have the right to exclude
all.
“RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS”
• “Rights” = what legal system allows.
• Can’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be. – E.g., Why do you think Shack is wrongly
decided?– Owners should have the right to exclude
all because …
“RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS”
• “Rights” = what legal system allows.
• Can’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be.
• “Interests” = needs & desires of parties.
Protecting Owners’ Interests
• O can exclude solicitors/peddlers if – doesn’t deprive MWs of practical access to
things they need.– purpose is not to gain a commercial
advantage
• Os can reasonably require visitors to identify selves and state purpose
• Visitors cannot– interfere w farming activities– engage in behavior hurtful to others
Protecting Owners’ Interests
DQ5: Are Shack limits sufficient to protect the owners’ interests? (3 Approaches)
Protecting Owners’ Interests
DQ5: Are Shack limits sufficient to protect the owners’ interests? (3 Approaches)
1. Identify key interests & discuss whether rules succeed or fail to address
• Security• Smooth operation of business• Privacy
Protecting Owners’ Interests
DQ5: Are Shack limits sufficient to protect the owners’ interests? (3 Approaches)
1. Identify key interests; do rules address?
2. Identify alternative or additional rules that might work better
• Limit times of access• Limit # of people allowed on land• Limit frequency of visits
Protecting Owners’ Interests
DQ5: Are Shack limits sufficient to protect the owners’ interests? (3 Approaches)
1. Identify key interests; do rules address? 2. Identify alternative/additional rules3. Discuss whether relevant interests are
balanced properly: • Workers’ minimal interest in possible
benefits from media oversight is less significant than the owners’ interest in the smooth operation of their businesses because …
Protecting Owners’ Interests
DQ6: Suppose you represent the NJ Apple-Growers Ass’n. Members of the association approach you to express their unhappiness with Shack. What steps can you take?
Protecting Owners’ Interests
DQ6: Suppose you represent the NJ Apple-Growers Ass’n. Members of the ass’n approach you to express unhappiness with Shack. What steps can you take?
1. Treat Result in Shack as Given; Advise Clients re Responses
2. Try to get Result in Shack Changed
Protecting Owners’ Interests
1. Treat Result in Shack as Given; Advise Clients re Responses
– Help draft standard rules for owners to employ (& litigate them)
– Help reorganize industry (no housing onsite)
– Explore leaving jurisd. (hard for apple-growers)
2. Try to get Result in Shack Changed
Protecting Owners’ Interests
1. Treat Result in Shack as Given; Advise Clients re Responses
2. Try to get Result in Shack Changed – Appeal to US Supreme Ct: Taking of
Property Rights w/o Just Compensation– Lobby state or fed’l legislators to pass
statute to change or eliminate Shack
Roles of State Legislatures v. State Supreme Courts
• Cutting-edge common law court decisions like Shack not dangerous; state legislature can always overrule.
Roles of State Legislatures v. State Supreme Courts
• Cutting-edge common law court decisions like Shack not dangerous; state legislature can always overrule.
-OR-
• Resolution of complex balancing of interests is best left to the legislature.
• Album of Year: Tapestry
• Best Picture: The French Connection
• Introduced to American Public:– Soft Contact Lenses & Amtrak– All Things Considered & Masterpiece Theatre – All in the Family & Jesus Christ Superstar – The Electric Company & Columbo
• Apollo 14: 4th Successful Moon Landing
• USSCt upholds busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance
• Nixon Administration– Gets Clean Air & Water Acts Enacted– Freezes Wages & Prices to Fight Inflation– Amicus Brief in Shack Favoring Workers on
Anti-Federalist Theory
Near the end of long post-Depression
period of great faith in Govt
• E.g., Deaths of Ex-Presidents
• Shack: Example of strong confidence by courts & legislatures that they can determine what is in best interests of public– Might get same result now, but often much
less sure of selves– Likely to be much more concern w Os P Rts
Seeds of Change:
1. Vietnam War: • Troops reduced by about 200,000 but still
184,000 troops in SE Asia YE1971
• US Voting Age lowered to 18 from 21 (old enough to die …)
• Perceived fiasco in Vietnam lowers conf in Govt
Seeds of Change:
1. Vietnam War
2. Concerns about war made Nixon’s reelection seem problematic
• 1971: White House staffers assemble people to deal w election: CREEP
• Yields Watergate break-in following spring
• Scandal undermines authority of govt