[Edit just to make this comment sensible w/o it's predecesor: Its author asked whether discussing the Constitution was relevant in the context of general human

[Edit just to make this comment sensible w/o it's predecesor: Its author asked whether discussing the Constitution was relevant in the context of general human rights (rather than a matter of US law), and observed that there are a number of abridgements we tolerate with respect to our rights in the US.] My point is that the Constitution is an instance/attempt to enshrine what people viewed as natural rights of man into law. In that context, i think the Constitution is relevant, in looking at what it was that they were attempting to guarantee. I'm not materially concerned with the abridgment of rights in extreme cases. In order to guarantee a orderly/functioning society, we submit to some limits on our inalienable rights. The important thing is that they are inalienable. The material point is whether access to communities that only exists on the internet is something that shouldn't be interfered with or denied at the whims of others with whom our interests may diverge. I.e. can your internet service provider disconnect you because they don't like you? :P