11 ms·
The problem with your argument is that you're looking backwards at what the government has done to predict what it will do. What if someone like Trump is electe
by JohnnyConatus 9y ago
The problem with your argument is that you're looking backwards at what the government has done to predict what it will do. What if someone like Trump is elected? Oh wait, there went that theory. How about what the south African government did or what the American dixiecrats would have done (further) if they had they power to suppress speech?
- rbehrends 9y ago> The problem with your argument is that you're looking backwards at what the government has done to predict what it will do. I am not predicting what the government will do. I am predicting what the Constitutional Court will do.
- btschaegg 9y agoTo be fair: That's the same thing. Counting on a system of humans keeping its stance regarding a certain topic while declaring laws is a recipe for disaster.
- rbehrends 9y agoIt's not the same thing. A constitutional court has independent judges bound only by their conscience, the constitution, and precedent, the government is answerable to its voters. And if you actually get to a point where all these checks and balances do break down, you have much bigger worries than just suppression of speech (which at this point becomes just a further symptom of an autocratic or totalitarian regime, not its cause).