3 ms·

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that another branch of government is therefor able to restrict that freedom? That would fundamentally challenge the co-eq

• krapp 7y ago
  >I don't understand. Are you suggesting that another branch of government is therefor able to restrict that freedom? Yes, because that's what the constitution says, or rather because it doesn't say otherwise. All rights not granted the Federal government through the constitution devolve to the states, and further, to the people. The states and private enterprise are allowed to abridge the freedom of speech, just not the Federal government through Congress. >GP's point is that the constitution serves not to grant the freedom of speech, but to restrict the government from curtailing it GP's point was that the constitution made a philosophical argument about freedom of speech as a natural right that it does not, in fact, make. One can believe that freedom of speech is a natural right if one so chooses, but the only thing the constitution actually says about freedom of speech is that it's one of a list of freedoms Congress can't pass laws to abridge.