5 ms·

Articles like this make me want to kiss a copy of the US constitution every night before bed. These raids are now happening in places like the UK and Canada to

Articles like this make me want to kiss a copy of the US constitution every night before bed. These raids are now happening in places like the UK and Canada too, places with a history of protecting speech. It seems unless your legal system has enshrined free speech as unassailable at the highest levels of law, you will slowly have those rights removed one step on a slippery slope at a time.

userbinator 4y ago
now happening in places like the UK and Canada I don't know about Canada, but I've never considered the UK to have "a history of protecting speech", or indeed a culture that particularly values free speech. They seem very keen on censorship and surveillance.
jfengel 4y ago
Your copy of the Constitution is worth what five people meeting in DC say it is worth. It sounds like you and they agree on a lot of stuff. Great. There are a lot of other people who find that rights they believed were guaranteed are in fact not. And I would not be so sure you will continue to agree with those five people indefinitely.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  You’d do best to review the checks and balances of the US government. Those five can always be overruled by Congress and the states.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    When was the last time that happened?
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  “Freedom of speech” is right there in the text. The right to an abortion was always, at best, a penumbral emanation. Whatever that means.
  - phs318u 4y ago
    How about the right to speak about where and how one might terminate a pregnancy? Is that protected speech?
    - drdeca 4y ago
      The right to say that one ought to be able to, certainly is. If something is a crime, it might not be legal to instruct people on how they can go about doing it? Which does seem like it could be problematic. I’m not certain quite what your point is.
- neither_color 4y ago
  I get where you're coming from but free speech is pretty much sacrosanct to Americans of all parties and way beyond the reach of 5 judges to "reinterpret" and infringe on, both sides depend on free speech. Think about the courage(and restraint) it takes for an African American police officer to defend a clan rally: https://time.com/3963726/south-carolina-kkk-rally-black-cop/ https://time.com/3963726/south-carolina-kkk-rally-black-cop/
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
> These raids are now happening in ... Canada Citation needed.
- throwawayIf1a 4y ago
  [dead]
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Reading about the actual case, it doesn't sound like that's what happened. It sounds like he was charged with contempt for violating court privacy orders around a case involving a minor. Not for referring "incorrectly" to his child's gender. He went to the press and spewed information about a case involving a minor which he was explicitly told violating court privacy rules. Minor's rights to privacy and protection are taken quite seriously by the court.
    - throwawayIf1a 4y ago
daveoc64 4y ago
The elected governments of the UK or Canada could choose to pass laws to make anything legal or illegal, but they don't. That suggests to me that the people and their representatives want these laws to be in place. Just like the people and their representatives in the USA don't want to change the constitution to remove the first amendment. The constitution in the US protects so much only because its government is otherwise dysfunctional - nobody ever has a majority large enough to change things. This doesn't happen in other countries - the current UK government has had a sizeable majority since 2019.
- nostromo 4y ago
  Civil rights should never be left up to the whims of the public. That’s what the US constitution gets right. As for all the Europeans that like to call the world’s oldest democracy dysfunctional - the fact that it’s hard to do things nationally without widespread support is a feature, not a bug.
  - daveoc64 4y ago
    > Civil rights should never be left up to the whims of the public. That’s what the US constitution gets right. I don't see anything about the constitution that protects it against the whims of the public. If a majority of the people in the US (and the people they elect) all agreed to change part of the constitution, that could happen.
    - drdeca 4y ago
      If a large majority did, yes, it could be changed. And obviously a piece of parchment cannot force people to do something if people unanimously decided to do otherwise. But preventing the whims of the just-barely-a-majority-of-those-who-voted from changing such an important thing, is important and useful.
    - nostromo 4y ago
      No, you need a supermajority of both houses and of the individual states. It’s very hard to do, which is by design.

userbinator 4y ago

now happening in places like the UK and Canada I don't know about Canada, but I've never considered the UK to have "a history of protecting speech", or indeed a culture that particularly values free speech. They seem very keen on censorship and surveillance.

jfengel 4y ago

Your copy of the Constitution is worth what five people meeting in DC say it is worth. It sounds like you and they agree on a lot of stuff. Great. There are a lot of other people who find that rights they believed were guaranteed are in fact not. And I would not be so sure you will continue to agree with those five people indefinitely.

jimbob45 4y ago
You’d do best to review the checks and balances of the US government. Those five can always be overruled by Congress and the states.
- jfengel 4y ago
  When was the last time that happened?
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
“Freedom of speech” is right there in the text. The right to an abortion was always, at best, a penumbral emanation. Whatever that means.
- phs318u 4y ago
  How about the right to speak about where and how one might terminate a pregnancy? Is that protected speech?
  - drdeca 4y ago
    The right to say that one ought to be able to, certainly is. If something is a crime, it might not be legal to instruct people on how they can go about doing it? Which does seem like it could be problematic. I’m not certain quite what your point is.
neither_color 4y ago
I get where you're coming from but free speech is pretty much sacrosanct to Americans of all parties and way beyond the reach of 5 judges to "reinterpret" and infringe on, both sides depend on free speech. Think about the courage(and restraint) it takes for an African American police officer to defend a clan rally: https://time.com/3963726/south-carolina-kkk-rally-black-cop/ https://time.com/3963726/south-carolina-kkk-rally-black-cop/

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

> These raids are now happening in ... Canada Citation needed.

throwawayIf1a 4y ago
[dead]
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Reading about the actual case, it doesn't sound like that's what happened. It sounds like he was charged with contempt for violating court privacy orders around a case involving a minor. Not for referring "incorrectly" to his child's gender. He went to the press and spewed information about a case involving a minor which he was explicitly told violating court privacy rules. Minor's rights to privacy and protection are taken quite seriously by the court.
  - throwawayIf1a 4y ago

daveoc64 4y ago

The elected governments of the UK or Canada could choose to pass laws to make anything legal or illegal, but they don't. That suggests to me that the people and their representatives want these laws to be in place. Just like the people and their representatives in the USA don't want to change the constitution to remove the first amendment. The constitution in the US protects so much only because its government is otherwise dysfunctional - nobody ever has a majority large enough to change things. This doesn't happen in other countries - the current UK government has had a sizeable majority since 2019.

nostromo 4y ago
Civil rights should never be left up to the whims of the public. That’s what the US constitution gets right. As for all the Europeans that like to call the world’s oldest democracy dysfunctional - the fact that it’s hard to do things nationally without widespread support is a feature, not a bug.
- daveoc64 4y ago
  > Civil rights should never be left up to the whims of the public. That’s what the US constitution gets right. I don't see anything about the constitution that protects it against the whims of the public. If a majority of the people in the US (and the people they elect) all agreed to change part of the constitution, that could happen.
  - drdeca 4y ago
    If a large majority did, yes, it could be changed. And obviously a piece of parchment cannot force people to do something if people unanimously decided to do otherwise. But preventing the whims of the just-barely-a-majority-of-those-who-voted from changing such an important thing, is important and useful.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    No, you need a supermajority of both houses and of the individual states. It’s very hard to do, which is by design.