4 ms·
This, i think, is where the US got it right, by making it clear that the people were granting rights to the government and not the other way around. My understa
by andrew_v4 6y ago
This, i think, is where the US got it right, by making it clear that the people were granting rights to the government and not the other way around. My understanding is that the US government would have no standing to make laws limiting free speech (even if they wanted to try). There is an interesting discussion here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-x/interps/129#:~:text=Rights%20Reserved%20to%20States%20or,respectively%2C%20or%20to%20the%20people https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte....
- TameAntelope 6y agoThe US for sure has limitations on speech, for example credible threats.
- Pet_Ant 6y agoI’m pretty certain that “speech” means expression of ideas, not the audible act of speaking. So making a threat is not covered in the same way that perjury isn’t covered.
- TameAntelope 6y agoIsn't actual speech also an expression of an idea? But yes, another good example would be perjury.
- andrew_v4 6y agoI think GP is saying that threats or perjury are not just characterized by the expression of an idea but another underlying crime. Like if someone walks into a bank and says "give me all your money or else", it's still a crime, the speaking part of it is immaterial.
- Pet_Ant 6y agoI wish I had expressed it as clearly: very much this.