AskBeehaw

2003 readers

2 users here now

An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.

In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.

Subcommunity of Chat

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

thrawn21@beehaw.org

UngodlyAudrey@beehaw.org

Beehaw, what is your opinion on right of nature laws, which recognize natural entities as having "personhood" or legal rights comparable to humans? (en.wikipedia.org)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/askbeehaw@beehaw.org

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

practical examples of this, if you're curious, include the Tūtohu Whakatupua (which declared the Whanganui River and tributaries as a legal entity), the agreement around Mount Taranaki (which grants it legal personhood), and the invalidated Lake Erie Bill of Rights (passed by Toledo, OH and was designed to allow residents to bring lawsuits on behalf of Lake Erie to protect it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 8 points 9 months ago

These do not grant anything human rights, they grant things the status of legal personhood, which has a very specific set of actions that an entity is legally acknowledged as being able to take, such as signing contracts and owning property, as 2 examples. They are sometimes called juridical persons.

You can't be charged with assault against a company for punching a building, or kidnapping or illegal detainment for stealing an object granted legal personhood.

It doesn't literally treat (or conflate) these things as being the same as humans.