5 ms·

It's not productive to tell those who disagree with you to grow up. There are serious consequences from having unlimited freedom of speech and you are not encou

It's not productive to tell those who disagree with you to grow up. There are serious consequences from having unlimited freedom of speech and you are not encouraging serious discussion about solutions to them by belittling people. I think it's also worth considering the effect that the internet has on the flow of information in society. Our current situation is not the same as it is when the first amendment was written. I'm not saying we should get rid of it and institute a Ministry of Truth, but we shouldn't assume that the people who wrote it were infallible and any differences between today's society and society 300 years ago don't matter.

kristianc 8y ago
Since the first amendment we've had 200+ years of nearly untrammeled progress. Before that, we in Europe had absolute monarchy and the divine right of Kings. Now sure, they might have been wrong, and they're weren't infallible, but if you're seeking to overturn that, you probably need something more compelling than 'the internet has increased the flow of information'. It was the increased flow of information with the printing press that brought about the Enlightenment in the first place.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  And if you are looking to defend it, you will probably need something more compelling than a correlation between prosperity and free speech. Anyways, I'm not seeking to overturn it. I said specifically in my comment "I'm not saying we should get rid of it". I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    > Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. I don't know that people are unwilling to _modify_ it, but rather to _violate_ it. I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. The rule of law is simply a lot more important than any given policy.
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? I fully agree that the amendment process has to be used. I would be in favor of a 28th amendment placing well thought out limitations on the 1st or the 2nd amendments. Assuming I thought that the limitations it was placing on them were good limitations.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        > What's the difference here between modifying and violating? The difference is between broad consensus and divided opinion. A Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote of Congress to propose, and ratification by 3/4 of states (which means any Constitutional amendment would require support from both red and blue states). Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority.
        wilsonnb 8y ago
        Technically Congress is not needed to propose an amendment but I see your distinction and agree that I would only support changes ratified by 3/4 of the states.
        maskedSlacker 8y ago
        > Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority. That's not really true of any non-budgetary legislation (for now).
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority. Where that's approximately true, it's actually 50% + ½. In the Senate, though, in practice, due to cloture, it potentially takes a 3/5 supermajority for most regular legislation.
      - wutbrodo 8y ago
        > What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? Yea,that's like... The entire point of the constitution. This is like saying "what's the difference between changing a law or breaking and entering after asking your friend Jeb if it's ok".
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. The Constitution is hard to change precisely because it's hard to get widespread consensus on changes to such fundamental precepts of our society. Especially in a country as big and diverse in viewpoints as the U.S. Given the current level of division in our society, I'm not open to modifying any part of the Constitution right now.
- CodeCube 8y ago
  And places like China are now seeing the same kind of untrammeled progress, as their economy completely explodes under political conditions that 'the west' would consider counter to what they would consider correct/right/whatever. Now to be clear, I'm obviously not advocating human rights violations, and strict governmental control ... I'm only pointing out that things like 'freedom of speech', while awesome and right IMO _may_ not exactly be the root cause of this age of prosperity.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    Indeed. The next 10 to 15 years in China will either further set an example that you don't need American/European democratic ideals in order for economic prosperity and a good life for your citizens, or it will go a long way to disproving the idea that those can be separated. With several eastern European countries trending in an authoritarian direction (and Turkey pretty far along that path already) I am worried about the effect that Chinese prosperity without democratic ideals will have.
    - kristianc 8y ago
      Legatum rates China's prosperity at 90th in the world, alongside El Salvador and Nepal, precisely because the lack of personal freedom and environmental degradation act as a counterbalance against China's robust economy. You can question the methodology, but then you have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the US and other mature social democracies which routinely top these rankings are not good places to live. Very few citizens of those countries would choose to live in Xi's China instead.
      - wilsonnb 8y ago
        I don't have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the US are not good places to live. They are good places to live. That has nothing to do with whether or not China is a good place to live. I only have to make the argument that personal freedom is not as important as economic prosperity. Since the end of the Cold War the general thinking was "democratic ideals -> economic prosperity -> good life". China's economic success without embracing democratic ideals to the extent that successful Western countries is making people and governments once again question whether or not the democratic ideals are actually needed. I would rather live in the US or Europe than China at the moment, but how long will that remain true for most people if China surpasses the US as the world's reigning superpower?
refurb 8y ago
This sounds strangely like the arguments for reinterpreting the 2nd amendment.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I would gladly make this exact argument for the second amendment. I don't see anything wrong with updating the Constitution as our society changes.

kristianc 8y ago

Since the first amendment we've had 200+ years of nearly untrammeled progress. Before that, we in Europe had absolute monarchy and the divine right of Kings. Now sure, they might have been wrong, and they're weren't infallible, but if you're seeking to overturn that, you probably need something more compelling than 'the internet has increased the flow of information'. It was the increased flow of information with the printing press that brought about the Enlightenment in the first place.

wilsonnb 8y ago
And if you are looking to defend it, you will probably need something more compelling than a correlation between prosperity and free speech. Anyways, I'm not seeking to overturn it. I said specifically in my comment "I'm not saying we should get rid of it". I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  > Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. I don't know that people are unwilling to _modify_ it, but rather to _violate_ it. I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. The rule of law is simply a lot more important than any given policy.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? I fully agree that the amendment process has to be used. I would be in favor of a 28th amendment placing well thought out limitations on the 1st or the 2nd amendments. Assuming I thought that the limitations it was placing on them were good limitations.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > What's the difference here between modifying and violating? The difference is between broad consensus and divided opinion. A Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote of Congress to propose, and ratification by 3/4 of states (which means any Constitutional amendment would require support from both red and blue states). Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority.
      - wilsonnb 8y ago
        Technically Congress is not needed to propose an amendment but I see your distinction and agree that I would only support changes ratified by 3/4 of the states.
      - maskedSlacker 8y ago
        > Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority. That's not really true of any non-budgetary legislation (for now).
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority. Where that's approximately true, it's actually 50% + ½. In the Senate, though, in practice, due to cloture, it potentially takes a 3/5 supermajority for most regular legislation.
    - wutbrodo 8y ago
      > What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? Yea,that's like... The entire point of the constitution. This is like saying "what's the difference between changing a law or breaking and entering after asking your friend Jeb if it's ok".
- rayiner 8y ago
  > I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. The Constitution is hard to change precisely because it's hard to get widespread consensus on changes to such fundamental precepts of our society. Especially in a country as big and diverse in viewpoints as the U.S. Given the current level of division in our society, I'm not open to modifying any part of the Constitution right now.
CodeCube 8y ago
And places like China are now seeing the same kind of untrammeled progress, as their economy completely explodes under political conditions that 'the west' would consider counter to what they would consider correct/right/whatever. Now to be clear, I'm obviously not advocating human rights violations, and strict governmental control ... I'm only pointing out that things like 'freedom of speech', while awesome and right IMO _may_ not exactly be the root cause of this age of prosperity.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  Indeed. The next 10 to 15 years in China will either further set an example that you don't need American/European democratic ideals in order for economic prosperity and a good life for your citizens, or it will go a long way to disproving the idea that those can be separated. With several eastern European countries trending in an authoritarian direction (and Turkey pretty far along that path already) I am worried about the effect that Chinese prosperity without democratic ideals will have.
  - kristianc 8y ago
    Legatum rates China's prosperity at 90th in the world, alongside El Salvador and Nepal, precisely because the lack of personal freedom and environmental degradation act as a counterbalance against China's robust economy. You can question the methodology, but then you have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the US and other mature social democracies which routinely top these rankings are not good places to live. Very few citizens of those countries would choose to live in Xi's China instead.
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      I don't have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the US are not good places to live. They are good places to live. That has nothing to do with whether or not China is a good place to live. I only have to make the argument that personal freedom is not as important as economic prosperity. Since the end of the Cold War the general thinking was "democratic ideals -> economic prosperity -> good life". China's economic success without embracing democratic ideals to the extent that successful Western countries is making people and governments once again question whether or not the democratic ideals are actually needed. I would rather live in the US or Europe than China at the moment, but how long will that remain true for most people if China surpasses the US as the world's reigning superpower?

refurb 8y ago

This sounds strangely like the arguments for reinterpreting the 2nd amendment.

wilsonnb 8y ago
I would gladly make this exact argument for the second amendment. I don't see anything wrong with updating the Constitution as our society changes.