Human Rights

[HenrySwanson]

Well I guess I have to count this as progress don't I? If you're seeing rights being "dominant", maybe I've at least moved the needle a little.

Most people treat moral questions like a bit of a gut check. And when their gut doesn't line up with their head, they go with their gut. That's not a bad thing, that gut (or ingrained instinct or deeply learned belief) is probably there for a good reason. But the gut is not infallible. People go with their gut when they say that drag shows are evil. People go with their gut with xenophobia too. I think it's important to learn to be skeptical of these kinds of responses. So let's look at your list.

1) Pain

First of all, pain is not something that is automatically bad. Your example suggests that the problem is actually causing pain to something that can be considered innocent - which would be a rights violation if that thing had rights. But I think it's important to remember that morally you can't regulate pain. It's something that we experience when we break up or get broken up with. Pain it's something you experience at the doctor's office or if you assault someone and get pepper sprayed.

Pain is almost impossible to define, and you can cast is broadly enough that you could decide that ants, trees, and computer programs feel it. Pain being hard to define, thresholds of pain are even harder.

If something doesn't have rights, we ultimately can cause it pain. Dogs don't have rights, generally, and they experience some pain when they are euthanized. Cows don't have rights, and they can experience some pain at the slaughterhouse or when branded. Death row criminals don't have rights, and they can experience some pain when they are euthanized as well. It may not be a wise idea to systemically cause unnecessary pain, and it may be a good idea to institutionalize practices that attempt to mitigate pain, like anesthetizing dogs, cows, or those to be executed. But this is fundamentally less of a moral question than you might initially think, because it is so hard to define, and because thresholds are so hard to define.

But they are given midazolam (I believe), to sedate them to a degree.

I think if there is going to be a death penalty there should be a stronger emphasis on the pain relief part than there is currently.

I don't see it as insanity.

Decades ago we thought there was no point to foetal anaesthesia, and yet that has changed with the greater amounts of foetal surgery being performed.

At present during a late term abortion, an injection of potassium chloride is administered alone. This isn't done to death row inmates and certainly wouldn't be used to euthanise a preterm infant of the same gestation.

I found it interesting that this case (which I think is going to lead to a change in the law) focussed entirely on the woman and not on the infant that died. Providing safe and legal abortion would have prevented this suffering, but there still would be suffering on the foetus's part according to how late term abortions are carried out.

2) Let's say we're talking about experimenting on an 8 celled human embryo. Where is your moral question? This is a moral misfiring. You're mentally attached to the DNA for some reason, and scientific experimentation then gets an automatic no from you, despite the fact that an 8-cell embryo is absolutely not a moral entity. An adult ant has 20 million cells.

Where are we setting the limit?

The point is strong when talking about early stage embryos, but what happens when we increase the limit?

3) What exactly are you concerned about with desecration of the dead? When you die, your body is reduced to a pile of tissue, bones, and blood. There is no moral entity there to protect. A lot of people donate their bodies to science, to be practiced on for dissection, to be studied, or for organ donation. Generally speaking, I can't see a reason to get worked up about some spent tissue. But as I mentioned, generally a dead body will belong to someone, it will be the property of that person. And so if you'r worried about how it will be treated because of the surviving people, it will be in their care directly.

And those in charge of the "property" should be able to do what they like with it?

4) You've barely discussed this one, so perhaps we should examine this further. I was thinking the other day that we may need something like a trademark for faces. This is not a moral prescription, just like trademarks are not a moral issue, but rather a regulatory exercise, just like trademark, to prevent confusion. Right now, there is a major strike in the entertainment industry, and one of the sticking points is ownership over an actor's likeness. I'm not sure that it should be limited to actors.

When someone draws a sexy fox engaged in adult behavior, how old is the fox? An adult fox is about 1 year old, roughly speaking. Is this a depiction of a 1 year old engaged in adult behavior? What if the person draws what looks like a 10 year old human engaged in that behavior, but the being is actually an alien that matures to this size as a adult? When it comes to fantasy artwork, it's very difficult to determine exactly what is and is not pedophillic pornography. And honestly, I think it's best that we not make the attempt. There is no evidence to suggest that it results in harm for anyone, and there are arguments that it could prevent harm.

It came about when posting in the Conservatism thread.

Paedophiles using open source AI to create child sexual abuse content, says watchdog

People sharing on dark web how to modify software on their computers to manipulate photos of children, says IWF

www.theguardian.com

Should this come down to purely a trademark issue?

Doctored might be a different case if the likeness is to a real person, but let's say someone uses AI to generate what would otherwise be illegal porn for personal gratification... what would you propose to do about it, and why? As Danoff points out, this implied, or 'virtual' immorality could potentially stop a real child being exploited, it causes no pain or suffering and is legitimately victimless.

In the above article, if they changed the face sufficiently enough, is it a conservative/wrong position to oppose it, specifically to say:

Law enforcement and child safety experts fear that photorealistic images of CSAM, which are illegal in the UK, will make it more difficult to identify and help real-life victims. They are also concerned that the sheer potential volume of such imagery could make it more widely consumed.

*I can't seem to change the formatting

 

[Danoff]

But they are given midazolam (I believe), to sedate them to a degree.

Not out of a matter of human rights, but out of a matter of compassion. "We" used to just hang them. Or shoot them. Other countries used to chop heads off, and worse. I think exercising some level of compassion that we won't go below with criminals makes some practical sense, but I don't see it as a moral imperative. Think of the worst criminals you can, and then try to think of whether you're morally required to anesthetize them so that they don't get uncomfortable in their last moments.

Most people end up uncomfortable in their last moments.

I think if there is going to be a death penalty there should be a stronger emphasis on the pain relief part than there is currently.

Maybe you see this as practical, I don't see it as morally required.

Decades ago we thought there was no point to foetal anaesthesia, and yet that has changed with the greater amounts of foetal surgery being performed.

At present during a late term abortion, an injection of potassium chloride is administered alone. This isn't done to death row inmates and certainly wouldn't be used to euthanise a preterm infant of the same gestation.

A little physical pain is not the end of the world. If you're worried about the physical pain that these inmates feel (largely people who inflicted a lot of pain on others, physical and otherwise), you should be 10x as worried about the emotional or psychological pain, which can be felt as profoundly as physical pain.

And those in charge of the "property" should be able to do what they like with it?

Up to infringing on the rights of others.

Should this come down to purely a trademark issue?

It would help and I think it makes sense. With the proper evidence in hand, which we don't have to my knowledge, it might make sense to license people to create and/or consume this kind of content. If you can show that it's inherently dangerous or harmful, it may be considered something that is so closely linked with a rights violation that it should be cross checked.

Licensing is like an assistant to arbitration of rights. Confusion over whether you have or are in process of violating the rights of others causes problems in societies that protect human rights - this is a big part of the reason government needs to exist today - arbitration of rights.

 

[TexRex]

4) You've barely discussed this one, so perhaps we should examine this further. I was thinking the other day that we may need something like a trademark for faces. This is not a moral prescription, just like trademarks are not a moral issue, but rather a regulatory exercise, just like trademark, to prevent confusion. Right now, there is a major strike in the entertainment industry, and one of the sticking points is ownership over an actor's likeness. I'm not sure that it should be limited to actors.

When someone draws a sexy fox engaged in adult behavior, how old is the fox? An adult fox is about 1 year old, roughly speaking. Is this a depiction of a 1 year old engaged in adult behavior? What if the person draws what looks like a 10 year old human engaged in that behavior, but the being is actually an alien that matures to this size as a adult? When it comes to fantasy artwork, it's very difficult to determine exactly what is and is not pedophillic pornography. And honestly, I think it's best that we not make the attempt. There is no evidence to suggest that it results in harm for anyone, and there are arguments that it could prevent harm.

One thing I don't understand is the apparent fetishization of anime girls styled after adolescents. It's creepy, if I'm honest, but it ultimately doesn't matter what they look like or what age they're supposed to be because they're not real and there is no violation of consent (either as a matter of coercion or of consent being unrecognized by law) as with the production and distribution of child sexual abuse material.

The only way I can see that doctored images--including but not limited to by AI--of real people should be considered by the court is as a tort, if, for example, those doctored images were employed in a defamatory act (of course subject to legal standards for defamation). Creation and possession of doctored images certainly shouldn't be criminalized as they don't violate consent, and I'm in mostly the same place with regard to distribution with the exception of intent to receive child sexual abuse material even when material isn't such--where the intent is to violate the rights of individuals appearing in said materials by receipt itself, that materials ended up being those which are doctored notwithstanding.

 

[Danoff]

One thing I don't understand is the apparent fetishization of anime girls styled after adolescents. It's creepy, if I'm honest, but it ultimately doesn't matter what they look like or what age they're supposed to be because they're not real and there is no violation of consent (either as a matter of coercion or of consent being unrecognized by law) as with the production and distribution of child sexual abuse material.

The only way I can see that doctored images--including but not limited to by AI--of real people should be considered by the court is as a tort, if, for example, those doctored images were employed in a defamatory act (of course subject to legal standards for defamation). Creation and possession of doctored images certainly shouldn't be criminalized as they don't violate consent, and I'm in mostly the same place with regard to distribution with the exception of intent to receive child sexual abuse material even when material isn't such--where the intent is to violate the rights of individuals appearing in said materials by receipt itself, that materials ended up being those which are doctored notwithstanding.

I thought that part of the requirement for defamation was that it was untrue. I guess I didn't think of these kinds of images being defamatory. I guess it applies under revenge porn laws, which I gather vary from state-to-state. The common thread there seems to be that posting pornography of someone without their consent is problematic. But it's hard for me to see this as limited to pornography.

Doctored revenge porn still seems like revenge porn. Doctored images of someone (recognizable real person) being murdered also seems problematic, I mean not for republican representatives, but for people who actually view other people as human beings.

 

[TexRex]

I thought that part of the requirement for defamation was that it was untrue. I guess I didn't think of these kinds of images being defamatory. I guess it applies under revenge porn laws, which I gather vary from state-to-state. The common thread there seems to be that posting pornography of someone without their consent is problematic. But it's hard for me to see this as limited to pornography.

Doctored revenge porn still seems like revenge porn. Doctored images of someone (recognizable real person) being murdered also seems problematic, I mean not for republican representatives, but for people who actually view other people as human beings.

Images themselves aren't likely to be defamatory, but they may be employed in a defamatory act. Presenting doctored images as genuine ought to satisfy the falsity requirement, but there are certainly other factors in a defamation claim.

So-called "revenge porn" is something else. So my view is that pornography itself is entirely fine provided all parties involved consent to all activities and the documentation and distribution thereof. Absent any component and it becomes a rights violation. I'd suggest the "revenge porn" label ought to fade away just as has begun with "child porn" because the rights violation takes it out of the realm of pornography.

I can't see the rights violation (be it violation of consent or defamation of character) when images which are doctored are presented as doctored. I can absolutely understand Scarlett Johansson's displeasure at her likeness being utilized in sexually explicit fakery, but I don't see one's displeasure as justification for depriving another of property or freedom.

 

[UKMikey]

I can't see the rights violation (be it violation of consent or defamation of character) when images which are doctored are presented as doctored. I can absolutely understand Scarlett Johansson's displeasure at her likeness being utilized in sexually explicit fakery, but I don't see one's displeasure as justification for depriving another of property or freedom.

Swap the pornhound for a movie studio, and you may just have resolved the conflict at the heart of the SAG-AFTRA strike. Except that Hollywood is doing it for profit.

 

[TexRex]

Swap the pornhound for a movie studio, and you may just have resolved the conflict at the heart of the SAG-AFTRA strike. Except that Hollywood is doing it for profit.

And that's not a minor distinction. Note that depriving individuals of opportunity by capitalizing on their likeness isn't a rights violation per se, which is why the dispute is playing out in boardrooms rather than courtrooms--we're not talking about prosecution or litigation (though the latter may come about in the future in the event of contract violations)

 

[UKMikey]

And that's not a minor distinction.

I didn't intend to imply that it was. Just thinking aloud.

Note that depriving individuals of opportunity by capitalizing on their likeness isn't a rights violation per se, which is why the dispute is playing out in boardrooms rather than courtrooms--we're not talking about prosecution or litigation (though the latter may come about in the future in the event of contract violations)

I may have misunderstood the argument but I thought it was about capitalising on the likenesses of individuals who are no longer alive, so I'm not sure which opportunity they're being deprived of other than the rights of their estate and descendants to profit from their fame and works. It sounds to me to be similar to the dispute regarding those corporations which choose to perpetually renew copyright of licensed characters like Mickey Mouse and Superman long after they would normally have passed into the public domain.

 

[TexRex]

I didn't intend to imply that it was. Just thinking aloud.

That's fine, just as I wasn't actually picking at your remark.

I may have misunderstood the argument but I thought it was about capitalising on the likenesses of individuals who are no longer alive, so I'm not sure which opportunity they're being deprived of other than the rights of their estate and descendants to profit from their fame and works. It sounds to me to be similar to the dispute regarding those corporations which choose to perpetually renew copyright of licensed characters like Mickey Mouse and Superman long after they would normally have passed into the public domain.

I'm not aware that the likenesses of the deceased enter into the SAG-AFTRA dispute at all.

I gather the thrust of the issue is regarding residuals from streaming which are not in line with those from conventional releases as production houses in fact move away from conventional releases and more emphasis is put on streaming. There may be a concern about AI, and it may be justified, but it seems tangential to the core complaint.

Now the issue of AI is apparently of greater importance to the WGA dispute as those resources may be more readily used to replace writing talent than any on-screen presence.

 

[UKMikey]

That's fine, just as I wasn't actually picking at your remark.I'm not aware that the likenesses of the deceased enter into the SAG-AFTRA dispute at all.

I gather the thrust of the issue is regarding residuals from streaming which are not in line with those from conventional releases as production houses in fact move away from conventional releases and more emphasis is put on streaming. There may be a concern about AI, and it may be justified, but it seems tangential to the core complaint.

I think it's stories like this that have led me to believe that concern over the use of AI is more than just tangential to the SAG strike.

SAG-AFTRA Strike: AI Fears Mount for Background Actors

The SAG-AFTRA strike has heightened concerns for background actors, the lowest ranking members of the union.

variety.com

Extras typically get work through large casting agencies. At Central Casting, background actors are given a voucher along with their pay stub. On the back is a dense page of fine-print legalese, which includes an extremely broad release.

“I hereby irrevocably grant to Production Company all rights of every kind and nature to the results and proceeds of all of my services hereunder,” the document states, including all acts “to be used or not used in any manner Production Company chooses throughout the universe in perpetuity in all media whether now known or hereafter devised.”

Phrasing such as "in perpetuity" is probably what got me thinking about the rights to profit from actors' likenesses after they've passed on.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Will reply later @Danoff but thought I'd put this here:

Grammys Intelligently Ban Artificial Intelligence From Awards Eligibility

“Heart on My Sleeve,” which featured replicated versions of Drake and the Weeknd’s voices, will not be considered for 2024 trophies

www.rollingstone.com

 

[HenrySwanson]

Not out of a matter of human rights, but out of a matter of compassion. "We" used to just hang them. Or shoot them. Other countries used to chop heads off, and worse. I think exercising some level of compassion that we won't go below with criminals makes some practical sense, but I don't see it as a moral imperative. Think of the worst criminals you can, and then try to think of whether you're morally required to anesthetize them so that they don't get uncomfortable in their last moments.

Most people end up uncomfortable in their last moments.



Maybe you see this as practical, I don't see it as morally required.

Disagree there.

If we have the opportunity to remove pain and suffering when intentionally ending that life, we should choose that option based on ethical principles.

A little physical pain is not the end of the world. If you're worried about the physical pain that these inmates feel (largely people who inflicted a lot of pain on others, physical and otherwise), you should be 10x as worried about the emotional or psychological pain, which can be felt as profoundly as physical pain.

....Why not both?

Up to infringing on the rights of others.

But that means they can do anything with that body if it doesn't "belong" to anyone.

When I did dissection we had to treat the deceased with respect, and place all cut tissue into appropriate containers at the end of each session. They had to have donated their bodies to science when they were alive for us to be able to use them.

Could, for example, a funeral services operative be allowed to cut up dead bodies if there isn't a claimant for the "property"?

 

[Danoff]

Disagree there.

If we have the opportunity to remove pain and suffering when intentionally ending that life, we should choose that option based on ethical principles.

....Why not both?

If someone chasing you with an axe saying they're going to kill you, are you obliged to avoid causing them pain?

But that means they can do anything with that body if it doesn't "belong" to anyone.

When I did dissection we had to treat the deceased with respect, and place all cut tissue into appropriate containers at the end of each session. They had to have donated their bodies to science when they were alive for us to be able to use them.

Could, for example, a funeral services operative be allowed to cut up dead bodies if there isn't a claimant for the "property"?

Treating the deceased with respect is a really good idea from a scientific study perspective, because you want future people to be willing to donate their bodies to science. If nobody claimed the body, it would be owned by the state. There is no version of this where a loaner's body is default owned by funeral services.

 

[HenrySwanson]

If someone chasing you with an axe saying they're going to kill you, are you obliged to avoid causing them pain?

No. But we aren't talking about an axe wielding person chasing someone.

I don't get the argument for not using a more sedate way of euthanising those on death row. Isn't there something about cruel and unusual punishment in US law?

Treating the deceased with respect is a really good idea from a scientific study perspective, because you want future people to be willing to donate their bodies to science. If nobody claimed the body, it would be owned by the state. There is no version of this where a loaner's body is default owned by funeral services.

And what limits can the state impose on how those bodies are treated?

 

[HenrySwanson]

This article got me thinking about sportswashing:

'The Grand Prix helps them': 20 years of sportswashing in Bahrain

The Bahrain Grand Prix is 20 years old this weekend, but away from the celebrations on the track, activists tell a dark story of power and repression

www.middleeasteye.net

Should there be more of a retaliation against events held in countries with questionable human rights records?

 

[Danoff]

Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right.

No right to trial then.

Correct. In fact, no right to a government at all.

A right is not something that the universe is obliged to provide to you. The universe just kinda does what it does. So if you think about it, a right needs to have a person (or entity) that can violate that right. If you have a right to a government, who is violating that right if you don't have one?

The US constitution includes things like a right to due process of law and trial by jury. But these are not fundamental human rights. In fact, the US constitution is not written from the perspective of fundamental human rights, it's written from the perspective of rules against the government, not establishment (enumeration I mean) of rights, but to prevent the government from violating rights. So the US constitution is something of a quirky document from the perspective of talking about natural rights. For example, the first amendment refers to a right to peacefully assemble, but doesn't actually refer to a right to freedom of speech. It just says that freedom of speech shall not be infringed. The amendments of the US constitution refer in passing to rights which it presupposes exist en route to explaining what the government is not allowed to do.

From this perspective, the US constitution assumes that a government exists, and then explains how that government could violate some assumed rights. So while due process and a jury trial might not be a natural human right, the US constitution is stating that if the US government does anything else, it will be violating some kind of rights. In particular, the rights that would be violated would be whatever is taken away by law as a penalty for whatever law is broken if a fair and just trial process is not followed by the government. In other words, incarceration or fines or community service or whatever the punishment is, that takes away some of the offender's rights, are in violation of the offender's rights if the government doesn't perform due diligence in the process of establishing what rights the offender retains.

TL;DR - these are rules to prevent the government from violating natural human rights, not natural human rights themselves.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Now's your time to shine Tik Tok generation. I mean, we all learnt so much from Qatar 2022!

Men's World Cup: FIFA should halt selection process for 2034 World Cup in Saudi Arabia

We are Amnesty International UK. We are ordinary people from across the world standing up for humanity and human rights.

www.amnesty.org.uk

In a new 27-page report - High Stakes Bids: Dangerously Flawed Human Rights Strategies for the 2030 and 2034 FIFA World Cup - Amnesty and the Sport & Rights Alliance have evaluated the human rights strategies proposed by Morocco, Portugal and Spain for the 2030 tournament, and by Saudi Arabia for the 2034 event. The report concludes that neither bid adequately outlines how the would-be host nation would meet the human rights standards required by FIFA in its bidding regulations, nor did these bids show evidence of having meaningfully consulted with human rights organisations.

The risks associated with Saudi Arabia hosting the 2023 World Cup are so high, said Amnesty and the Sport & Rights Alliance, that hosting the tournament in this country is likely to lead to severe and widespread rights violations (see further details below).

Steve Cockburn, Amnesty International’s Head of Labour Rights and Sport, said:

“There will be a real and predictable human cost to awarding the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia without obtaining credible guarantees of reform.

“Fans will face discrimination, residents will be forcibly evicted, migrant workers will face exploitation, and many will die.

“Saudi Arabia will require a vast number of migrant workers to deliver its World Cup ambitions, yet there are no commitments to reform the country’s exploitative ‘kafala’ sponsorship system, establish a minimum wage for non-citizens, permit them to join trade unions or introduce new measures to prevent worker deaths.

“Saudi Arabia’s human rights strategy does not address the government’s severe repression of free speech and the continued imprisonment of individuals who have been sentenced to decades in prison merely for their expression, suggesting that there is no serious commitment to reform.

Still, I'm sure FIFA will hold them to account:

Saudi Arabia World Cup bid report accused of ‘whitewashing’ rights abuses

Law firm AS&H Clifford Chance failed to include alleged abuse of migrant workers in assessment for Fifa 2034 bid, say rights groups

www.theguardian.com

Oh....

 

[Imari]

FIFA is corrupt. In other news, sky is still blue.