3 ms·

If you're in the US: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ > Congress shall

If you're in the US: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ > 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. Emphasis mine. There is a beautiful expansion by Blackstone. It makes me proud of this place: > The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects. Citation: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALDE_00000393/#ALDF_00006040 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALD...

femiagbabiaka 4y ago
The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of American politics (at least).
- RhysU 4y ago
  > the spirit of the document What do you mean by this? > It’s a shibboleth It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"? > It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman... There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this. And as for shibboleth: > The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
- the_biot 4y ago
  It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    What? The interpretation of the document by the highest court in the land changes according to the political affiliation of whoever happens to be on the court at the time. The very fact that it has to be interpreted means subjectivity is there from the beginning.
  - chillacy 4y ago
    The justices on the Supreme Court all have pretty different* interpetations of this absolute truth, so I do kind of get OP’s point. * different enough that it matters to people who care about modern day politics
claudiawerner 4y ago
>...is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government This doesn't seem right. Firstly, we generally operate under the principle that laws are created by the populace, not "one man", the censor. That seems to contradict the idea that a control on freedom of speech would be up to the whims of one person, if the censor is restricted in his activities by the voting populace and the lawmakers they elect. Secondly, this type of restriction has precedent in several other important areas of life, such as food and drugs. While many people disagree with the FDA's decisions, very few people argue for its abolition in its role as a 'censor' of which products can be sold and in what quantities on the American market. Of course, the usual retort would be "I trust the state to regulate food and drugs more than I trust it to regulate speech", but to convince someone else of that point, you'd have to also provide evidence and reasoning that our hypothetical censor cannot be trusted to censor according to the law that the citizens vote for via their representatives. Another retort would be "Free speech is more important than food and drug availability", but that statement implicitly admits there's an issue with any food regulation, it's just not as important as speech, which leads to the question of why so few free speech absolutists care about abolishing the FDA. I haven't really seen any convincing argument for a slippery slope when it comes to regulation of speech, nor any reasoned argument on why there ought to be an absolute constitutional protection on speech. That said, I'm not personally in love with the idea of a censor, as I've seen that censors in other countries have practiced unjustified censorship - but that seems like a problem with the democratic process and oversight rather than the idea of a censor.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of American politics (at least).

RhysU 4y ago
> the spirit of the document What do you mean by this? > It’s a shibboleth It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"? > It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman... There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this. And as for shibboleth: > The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
the_biot 4y ago
It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  What? The interpretation of the document by the highest court in the land changes according to the political affiliation of whoever happens to be on the court at the time. The very fact that it has to be interpreted means subjectivity is there from the beginning.
- chillacy 4y ago
  The justices on the Supreme Court all have pretty different* interpetations of this absolute truth, so I do kind of get OP’s point. * different enough that it matters to people who care about modern day politics

claudiawerner 4y ago

>...is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government This doesn't seem right. Firstly, we generally operate under the principle that laws are created by the populace, not "one man", the censor. That seems to contradict the idea that a control on freedom of speech would be up to the whims of one person, if the censor is restricted in his activities by the voting populace and the lawmakers they elect. Secondly, this type of restriction has precedent in several other important areas of life, such as food and drugs. While many people disagree with the FDA's decisions, very few people argue for its abolition in its role as a 'censor' of which products can be sold and in what quantities on the American market. Of course, the usual retort would be "I trust the state to regulate food and drugs more than I trust it to regulate speech", but to convince someone else of that point, you'd have to also provide evidence and reasoning that our hypothetical censor cannot be trusted to censor according to the law that the citizens vote for via their representatives. Another retort would be "Free speech is more important than food and drug availability", but that statement implicitly admits there's an issue with any food regulation, it's just not as important as speech, which leads to the question of why so few free speech absolutists care about abolishing the FDA. I haven't really seen any convincing argument for a slippery slope when it comes to regulation of speech, nor any reasoned argument on why there ought to be an absolute constitutional protection on speech. That said, I'm not personally in love with the idea of a censor, as I've seen that censors in other countries have practiced unjustified censorship - but that seems like a problem with the democratic process and oversight rather than the idea of a censor.