> Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it w

> Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it with a 51% majority. (A future government can ignore it or say it doesn't apply, of course. But the Supreme Court may disagree... several years later.) That only addresses one of the four ways I listed though. (1) Any future government can just take it out - I believe you addressed this point (2) just completely ignore its existence - The government can pass other laws such as the Espionage Act [1] that restricts free speech without needing to go through the effort of an amendment. (3) say it doesn't apply in this situation - Espionage Act [1] again applies here. There's also a lot of discussion about if say the USG asks twitter to do something does it apply or because the actual restriction came from a private entity does it not? (4) work around it - Twitter again applies here (as does just buying 3rd party data to get around the other amendments). - Some argue that Snowden has a free speech right to tell/show people what he did. This doesn't apply as Snowden has a separate civil agreement (NDA) with the government. > So think carefully about whether you want to open that door. Very much agreed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917