3 ms·

You got me interested so I looked for the English translation. Taken from Constitution.org > Article 100 > There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may

by SllX 7y ago

You got me interested so I looked for the English translation. Taken from Constitution.org > Article 100 > There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. I always get interested in how other free speech laws are worded because I enjoy the way Madison worded the First Amendment so damn much. When somebody points to an Article # or something like that, it makes my pursuit of this hobby a bit easier. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Compare and contrast. One is a grant, essentially a permission, to the people of Norway, and the other is basically telling the US Congress to fuck off because it has no right nor permission and not even a wink and a nod to make any law on the matters which follow. The liberty is inherent, Congress’ powers are not. Mind this is a translation, I unfortunately do not know any Norwegian to verify the original Article 100. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=I https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x... Now compare and contrast with the California State Constitution. I’m providing a link because it is much wordier, and starts at Sec 2 and runs for a few more sections. While California is under the same structures of as the First Amendment in modern times, that wasn’t always the case. If you read the wording here, it is downright inferior to both the US First Amendment and the Norwegians Article 100, spares too many words, and phrases it’s equivalents mostly in a manner of a permission under the CA Constitution rather than telling the State legislature to fuck off. An unfortunate choice, but most of the State’s Constitution is a long tragedy of errors and poor choices, one of the most unfortunate being the choice to grant voters the right to amend the bloody rag by referendum.

jaywalk 7y ago
Yeah, Norway's Article 100 isn't anywhere near as powerful as the First Amendment. So many broad and vague exceptions are carved out, and as you pointed out it's granting the people of Norway a right instead of enshrining an inherent right.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  -That inherent right may, however, be repealed by Congress and state legislatures (not that I can see THAT happen). To amend our Constitution, two sessions of Parliament -with an election inbetween- must ratify the change proposed at two thirds majority. That being said, long-standing consensus on Article 100 is that any power-that-be attempts to mess with §100 at their own peril.
  - SllX 7y ago
    Our amendment process is not for the faint of heart, and so amendments are rare. An amendment can be proposed by two-thirds of Congress or by 2/3 of the State legislatures, but to be ratified you need 3/4 of the States to agree and each State has equal voice regardless of population. During the ratification process for the Constitution, there was some debate about whether a Bill of Rights was even necessary, but there were many States that didn’t want to ratify without one. The reason for the debate is that the liberties in the Bill of Rights were taken to already be natural rights and so spelling them out was unnecessary, but the Anti-Federalist faction wasn’t convinced. Madison eventually won his seat in the election of the First Congress against Monroe (fun fact, they traveled together while campaigning!) by campaigning on the promise to draft and propose a Bill of Rights, but he didn’t see the lack of one as a reason to hold up the ratification conventions. So repealing the First Amendment wouldn’t have the effect of repealing Free speech per se. Congress would still have to justify regulating speech under its enumerated powers (and could still lose elections over the issue) and many State constitutions already have their own takes on it. Some more like Norway’s Article 100, and some more like the First Amendment.

by SllX 7y ago

jaywalk 7y ago

Yeah, Norway's Article 100 isn't anywhere near as powerful as the First Amendment. So many broad and vague exceptions are carved out, and as you pointed out it's granting the people of Norway a right instead of enshrining an inherent right.

lb1lf 7y ago
-That inherent right may, however, be repealed by Congress and state legislatures (not that I can see THAT happen). To amend our Constitution, two sessions of Parliament -with an election inbetween- must ratify the change proposed at two thirds majority. That being said, long-standing consensus on Article 100 is that any power-that-be attempts to mess with §100 at their own peril.
- SllX 7y ago
  Our amendment process is not for the faint of heart, and so amendments are rare. An amendment can be proposed by two-thirds of Congress or by 2/3 of the State legislatures, but to be ratified you need 3/4 of the States to agree and each State has equal voice regardless of population. During the ratification process for the Constitution, there was some debate about whether a Bill of Rights was even necessary, but there were many States that didn’t want to ratify without one. The reason for the debate is that the liberties in the Bill of Rights were taken to already be natural rights and so spelling them out was unnecessary, but the Anti-Federalist faction wasn’t convinced. Madison eventually won his seat in the election of the First Congress against Monroe (fun fact, they traveled together while campaigning!) by campaigning on the promise to draft and propose a Bill of Rights, but he didn’t see the lack of one as a reason to hold up the ratification conventions. So repealing the First Amendment wouldn’t have the effect of repealing Free speech per se. Congress would still have to justify regulating speech under its enumerated powers (and could still lose elections over the issue) and many State constitutions already have their own takes on it. Some more like Norway’s Article 100, and some more like the First Amendment.