5 ms·

The principle of free speech in American law is government-granted to begin with. Why did it surprise people that it comes with limits?

harpiaharpyja 6y ago
If we've gotten to the point where we just accept that individual rights are granted by the government and can thus be limited by said government by any means or process, then the idea that private individuals have inalienable rights against the state is de-facto dead.
- esoterica 6y ago
  Rights are a societal construct and there is no higher moral authority who gets to decide what the true set of of inalienable rights are. If you decide that X is an inalienable right and the society around you doesn’t agree, on what grounds do you have the authority to claim that everybody else is wrong and only you are in possession of the Truth?
  - nkrisc 6y ago
    This is true. You only have rights when others agree to grant you those rights. If everyone agreed it was an inalienable right to kill anyone who looked at you sideways, thus it would be.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Furthermore, each 'inalienable right' places some burden on the rest of society to actually enforce it. For example, 'right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers' means that judges and the rest of them must be organised, paid for, etc.
  - clinta 6y ago
    What grounds would a slave, living in a time and place where slavery is legal, have to argue in defense of their freedom? If you are willing to recognize that society has had an incorrect view of rights in the past, you must recognize that there is a standard beyond society to appeal to.
    - spiralx 6y ago
      Why does believing society had an incorrect view of rights in the past entail such a thing? It's compatible both with believing that society today has a correct view of rights and the opposite, believing that society today has an incorrect view of rights - even if that view is different than before. Having an opinion doesn't make that opinion an objective fact!
      - clinta 6y ago
        Having an opinion doesn't make that opinion fact. But if you say that one opinion is in any way superior to another opinion then you are recognizing that there is something to measure those opinions against. There is some truth that we are trying to discover through reason.
    - krapp 6y ago
      In the case of actual slaves living in such a time, they still appealed to society both directly and through government (another abstraction,) because not even authoritarian societies are absolutely uniform, and societal constructs are mutable. Unless you want to invoke divine will as that "standard beyond society," humanity and its arbitrary social constructs are all you have available to deal with, and some problems can't be reduced to objective and absolute terms as a result. You could invoke "nature" but nature doesn't recognize rights. No creature has a natural right to food, safety or property. Nature engages in warfare, cruelty, violence, rape and slavery with abandon, and without even the pretext of morality. Even anarchists wouldn't want to live in a world governed entirely by natural law.
      - clinta 6y ago
        Reducing the options to divine or arbitrary is a false dilemma. Math is discovered/invented by humans, but it is far from arbitrary. A slave will appeal to society because society has the power. But if the society does not listen to the appeals of the slave, we can still judge that the slave is correct and the society is wrong. And that judgement is not arbitrary.
    - 6y ago
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
No it isn't. The US government grants no rights. That's how the Chinese constitution works with each right specifically enumerated. In the US there are bounds placed on the power available to the government. Everything else not expressly ceded to the government belongs to the people.
- ConcernedCoder 6y ago
  This is the correct response.
- La1n 6y ago
  Then why is this specifically encoded in the first amendment?
  - sjfieixj 6y ago
    From the text: "The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."
  - shhdjdks 6y ago
    From the text: "The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    The amendment is "Congress shall make no law...". It is solely a prohibition on government power and nothing else. You have guaranteed free speech when a citizen interacts with the government. You don't have it when interacting with a private institution. This is how social media can censor and deplatform with impunity.

harpiaharpyja 6y ago

If we've gotten to the point where we just accept that individual rights are granted by the government and can thus be limited by said government by any means or process, then the idea that private individuals have inalienable rights against the state is de-facto dead.

esoterica 6y ago
Rights are a societal construct and there is no higher moral authority who gets to decide what the true set of of inalienable rights are. If you decide that X is an inalienable right and the society around you doesn’t agree, on what grounds do you have the authority to claim that everybody else is wrong and only you are in possession of the Truth?
- nkrisc 6y ago
  This is true. You only have rights when others agree to grant you those rights. If everyone agreed it was an inalienable right to kill anyone who looked at you sideways, thus it would be.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Furthermore, each 'inalienable right' places some burden on the rest of society to actually enforce it. For example, 'right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers' means that judges and the rest of them must be organised, paid for, etc.
- clinta 6y ago
  What grounds would a slave, living in a time and place where slavery is legal, have to argue in defense of their freedom? If you are willing to recognize that society has had an incorrect view of rights in the past, you must recognize that there is a standard beyond society to appeal to.
  - spiralx 6y ago
    Why does believing society had an incorrect view of rights in the past entail such a thing? It's compatible both with believing that society today has a correct view of rights and the opposite, believing that society today has an incorrect view of rights - even if that view is different than before. Having an opinion doesn't make that opinion an objective fact!
    - clinta 6y ago
      Having an opinion doesn't make that opinion fact. But if you say that one opinion is in any way superior to another opinion then you are recognizing that there is something to measure those opinions against. There is some truth that we are trying to discover through reason.
  - krapp 6y ago
    In the case of actual slaves living in such a time, they still appealed to society both directly and through government (another abstraction,) because not even authoritarian societies are absolutely uniform, and societal constructs are mutable. Unless you want to invoke divine will as that "standard beyond society," humanity and its arbitrary social constructs are all you have available to deal with, and some problems can't be reduced to objective and absolute terms as a result. You could invoke "nature" but nature doesn't recognize rights. No creature has a natural right to food, safety or property. Nature engages in warfare, cruelty, violence, rape and slavery with abandon, and without even the pretext of morality. Even anarchists wouldn't want to live in a world governed entirely by natural law.
    - clinta 6y ago
      Reducing the options to divine or arbitrary is a false dilemma. Math is discovered/invented by humans, but it is far from arbitrary. A slave will appeal to society because society has the power. But if the society does not listen to the appeals of the slave, we can still judge that the slave is correct and the society is wrong. And that judgement is not arbitrary.
  - 6y ago

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

No it isn't. The US government grants no rights. That's how the Chinese constitution works with each right specifically enumerated. In the US there are bounds placed on the power available to the government. Everything else not expressly ceded to the government belongs to the people.

ConcernedCoder 6y ago
This is the correct response.
La1n 6y ago
Then why is this specifically encoded in the first amendment?
- sjfieixj 6y ago
  From the text: "The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."
- shhdjdks 6y ago
  From the text: "The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  The amendment is "Congress shall make no law...". It is solely a prohibition on government power and nothing else. You have guaranteed free speech when a citizen interacts with the government. You don't have it when interacting with a private institution. This is how social media can censor and deplatform with impunity.