By Darren Penn, Attorney, Penn Law

The concept of rights is foundational to the organization of societies and the governance of human behavior. But rights are not infinite; they exist within a framework of limitations because society functions as a shared space where the rights of one individual can directly affect the rights of another. When one person is granted a particular right, it often requires others to make concessions, creating a delicate balancing act to ensure fairness and societal harmony.
A poignant example of this interplay is the debate over smoking in public. When a person is given the right to smoke in a shared space, others in that space inherently lose their ability to enjoy a smoke-free environment. This scenario underscores the principle that rights do not exist in isolation; they interact with, and sometimes conflict with, the rights of others. For those exposed to secondhand smoke, the effects are not merely an inconvenience but can also pose serious health risks. By prioritizing the smoker’s right to indulge, society diminishes the non-smoker’s right to personal health and comfort.
This tension is not unique to smoking; it permeates many areas of public life. Consider the right to freedom of speech, a cornerstone of democratic societies. While everyone is entitled to express their opinions, this right becomes finite when it infringes upon the rights of others to feel safe or free from harm. Hate speech, for instance, may fall under the banner of free expression for the speaker, but it can encroach upon the rights of others by fostering discrimination, fear, or violence. In such cases, societies often implement laws to balance these competing rights, restricting certain forms of speech to protect vulnerable groups.
Another critical example of this balancing act is found in tort reform, which has significant implications for the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury. The 7th Amendment guarantees individuals the right to have civil disputes decided by a jury of their peers. Tort reform, however, often limits this right by capping damages or restricting the ability to bring certain lawsuits. While proponents argue that tort reform helps prevent frivolous lawsuits and reduces costs for businesses and healthcare providers, in reality it merely away the rights of individuals to hold others fully accountable for harm–existing laws punish those bringing frivolous lawsuits and shift the costs of litigation to the losing party in the rare cases where a truly frivolous lawsuit is filed.
For instance, if a person suffers severe injury due to medical malpractice but laws cap damages for pain and suffering, their ability to seek full redress is undermined. Similarly, when procedural barriers or mandatory arbitration replace the right to a jury trial, individuals lose their opportunity to have their grievances fairly heard and decided. This weakens accountability and shifts power away from ordinary citizens toward corporations, insurance companies, or other well-resourced entities. Tort reform thus illustrates how expanding one group’s protections or conveniences (e.g., corporations and insurance companies seeking more profits and reduced liability) can come at the direct expense of another group’s fundamental rights.
The finite nature of rights raises moral and ethical questions about prioritization. Whose rights take precedence in situations of conflict? The answer often depends on societal values, cultural norms, and legal frameworks. In democratic societies, this balance is often achieved through public discourse, legislation, and judicial decisions, which aim to reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the interests of minority groups.
Ultimately, the finite nature of rights reminds us that freedom is not merely about individual entitlement but about coexistence and compromise. A society that ignores this balance risks descending into chaos, where the strong dominate the weak or where unrestricted freedoms lead to harm. Recognizing the interdependence of rights encourages empathy and dialogue, helping to craft policies that respect both individual freedoms and collective well-being.
Rights are not infinite, and granting a right to one person often requires taking it, in part or in whole, from another. This interplay demands careful consideration and thoughtful governance to create a society that respects the delicate equilibrium of competing interests. Tort reform highlights how this balancing act can profoundly affect the fundamental rights of individuals, demonstrating that vigilance is necessary to ensure fairness and accountability in a world of finite freedoms.