What is 'Wrong'

[M.Dancer]

Under what argument(s) could her property and religious rights be denied?

Your right to practice your religion ends as soon as you violate the rights of others (in this case the rights of the signal broadcasters would be violated). Religion cannot be used to justify crimes of any sort. If we allowed that then everyone accused of a crime would invent a convenient religion.

But the signal senders are violating her right to be free from their signal.

The judge ruled and found the signal providers in the wrong.

He ruled that they were to provide the woman with a lifetime supply of tinfoil hats........

Let me try to put it this way:

In 1800 our laws provided certain rights to property including that the owner's title went from Earth to Heaven. It would have been thought quite mad to suggest that a neighbor could set up vast infrastructure and beam light at your property 24/7, and that it was illegal for you to block or make use of the light within the confines of your property. Now, several years later, merely because someone has found a way to make profit from beaming stuff, our property rights have been completely overturned.

And with this post, shares in Alcan rose dramatically.....

No I agree....those darn radio signals are infinging on your rights.....it's just that without proper medication, you can't explain how......

[M.Dancer]

I weep for the artists who livlihood is threatene by those who steal their work......

Okay I don't weep....but their work is being stolen....how going to all the trouble to decode a signal is different than from downloading a CD is beyond me....afterall.....those internet signals were just radiating into my 'puter.....

....So if the CRTC doesn't sue your ass....you better watch our for Universal!

[Charles Anthony]

My argument is that it is not just illegal but wrong and a violation of the rights of the signal broadcaster.

In the future, if it is proven that the the broadcast signal was physically harmful, would this change your argument?

Would it still be wrong to illegally decode the signal and enjoy the broadcast without paying for a subscription?

What if only a minority of the population gets sick, how would you balance the rights?

Would the rights of the broadcaster and their subscribers supercede the rights of the sick?

Although I do not, some people believe that they are harmed by various electromagnetic waves that we accept as normal. They may be crack-pots (believe it or not, I think they ARE crack-pots! those are not conspiracy theories to which I subscribe!) however, they may be proven correct. Regardless, the principal is important and completely analogous to the general dealings with environmental pollution. Often unsuspecting victims of pollution exhibit nefarious effects after it is too late through no fault of their own -- i.e., breathing air (or drinking water) they should reasonably assume was safe.

[Riverwind]

My argument is that it is not just illegal but wrong and a violation of the rights of the signal broadcaster.

In the future, if it is proven that the the broadcast signal was physically harmful, would this change your argument?

No. If the broadcasts are proven to be physically harmful to even some people then they should be stopped altogether. There are no circumstances where someone should be entitled to free programming because their 'airspace' is violated by these signals.

What if only a minority of the population gets sick, how would you balance the rights? Would the rights of the broadcaster and their subscribers supercede the rights of the sick?

There are many cases where a potentially useful product or service is banned because it has an adverse effect on a minority of people. The proper balance would have to be determined on a case by case basis. For example, some people get sick because of car exhaust. The gov't can legislate pollution controls to mitigate the problem, however, banning cars is simply not an option because there are no pratical alternatives at this time. As Spock said: logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Charles Anthony]

I see no logic in Spock's statement -- unless "outweigh" is limited to represent the reasonably expected outcome of a battle.

[Hicksey]

Why is it that when some people do wrong they compulsively try to argue it is right? The only important marks of right and wrong, are the law, legislators and the surpeme court. If they say it is wrong, for all intensive purposes it is. Whether you think it is right or I agree with the law that it is wrong, is of zero consequence. I thought hate-speech laws were overstepping because they selectively shielded people instead of a blanket set of protections for everyone. Did they listen to me? Or the politicians that agreed with me? Nope. Laws designed to reign in an entire society cannot make everyone happy. If you choose to disobey you can as long as you are willing to assume the risk of being caught and punished. That's freedom at work. The problem is that nobody seems to see how that freedom doesn't make them free from the consequences of their actions.

[Charles Anthony]

Why is it that when some people do wrong they compulsively try to argue it is right?

I think it is because they are not as smart as other people.