4 ms·

A consequence of not having a Bill of Rights with a First Amendment, something routinely mocked on the one side of the Atlantic. The point is that intentionall

A consequence of not having a Bill of Rights with a First Amendment, something routinely mocked on the one side of the Atlantic. The point is that intentionally overbroad restrictions on speech or content are a lot more difficult in the US.

pksebben 4y ago
I feel like we suffer from intentionally overbroad protections in this vein. Corporations being people and what not.
joenot443 4y ago
This is true. We're frequently reminded growing up in Canada that despite what we'd gather from the tv/film we consume, we don't have the same freedom of speech laws that our friends in the south do. People are sent to jail for hate speech in Canada, both online and in-person, something I'm not aware of happening in the states. Our Charter provides us with a "freedom of expression" for which the government is allowed "reasonable" grounds for censorship and speech restriction. For better or worse, there are many, many websites hosted in the US which would never fly in Canada.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > We're frequently reminded growing up in Canada that despite what we'd gather from the tv/film we consume, we don't have the same freedom of speech laws that our friends in the south do. Why not simply get those rights? Looking at the brain flow to and from the US, there are a lot of Canadians voting with their feet... Americans did about 250 years ago. To me, the Canadian political system has always been a source of amazement and quite an enigma. The constitution of that country simply wasn't signed by a third of the population, and this is considered normal over there. Could anyone here in America imagine that?
  - peanuty1 4y ago
    > Why not simply get those rights? Governments rarely relinquish power.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    The U.S. Constitution was signed by 0% of living Americans, and only a few dozen people that were alive when it was signed. It only came into effect when ratified by 3/4 of states. What 1/3rd are you talking about?
  - 10000truths 4y ago
    No need to imagine. The slaves and indigenous people in America had no vote or representation in the drafting of the Constitution or bill of rights, either. The southern states chose to wage war rather than address the hypocrisy of owning slaves in a "free country".
    - 908B64B197 4y ago
      > indigenous people in America had no vote or representation in the drafting of the Constitution or bill of rights, either. At the time they weren't subject to it either, being considered separate nations by the early republic.
  - joenot443 4y ago
    > Why not simply get those rights? I'm actually living in NYC on a TN visa at the moment, so in a way, I've begun the voting process. If everything goes as planned, I hope to spend the next few decades with ample time in both countries, like my folks do. I've come to realize there's a lot I love and appreciate about either, despite their flaws. We here in North America are very, very lucky.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"Our Charter provides us with ..." Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides us nothing as at any point federal or provincial government can say fuck you and we will do as we please using that infamous notwithstanding clause. Examples of this already exist. Look at Ford or Legault for example. I think this notwithstanding clause is our disgrace and makes a mockery of our rights.
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    > Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides us nothing as at any point federal or provincial government can say fuck you and we will do as we please using that infamous notwithstanding clause. Honestly the same paradigm exists in the US. As long as one branch of federal government can get another to agree to a Constitution-violating law or policy, the protections in the Constitution carry as much weight as a travel brochure. Similar shenanigans apply with regard to state and federal law conflicts. For example, for better or for worse, state level legalization of cannabis flies in the face of the Supremacy Clause, but that gets overlooked because the laws are something the federal government tacitly approves of (but can't get its act together to give formal blessing).
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Honestly the same paradigm exists in the US" I am in Canada. The fact that it screwed up in the US does not make me feel any better. For what it worth I still think that basic freedoms protections are still better in the US.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    Why not simply get a constitution, by the people for the people, unanimously signed by every Province/State?
    - FpUser 4y ago
      Why don't we all sing kumbaya and be friends.
cm2187 4y ago
In fact I am not aware of any restriction on what the house of commons can vote with a simple majority. On one hand it's the longuest continuously functioning democracy, so it deserves some credit. On the other hand it's a terribly dangerous system.
astrange 4y ago
Sometimes you'll see British news discuss "constitutional" issues in politics. Since they don't have a written constitution, this is clearly cope, like when they pretend the food comes in colors other than brown. Although some of it is written down; specifically it's written in an anonymous letter to the Times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
sangnoir 4y ago
> The point is that intentionally overbroad restrictions on speech or content are a lot more difficult in the US. This depends entirely on the current mood of 5 justices on the Supreme Court, and on which side of the political spectrum an issue lands.
daveoc64 4y ago
But with a functioning majority, governments in Europe would be able to amend any such bill or constitution. It only works how it does in the USA because of political stalemate and gridlock.

pksebben 4y ago

I feel like we suffer from intentionally overbroad protections in this vein. Corporations being people and what not.

joenot443 4y ago

This is true. We're frequently reminded growing up in Canada that despite what we'd gather from the tv/film we consume, we don't have the same freedom of speech laws that our friends in the south do. People are sent to jail for hate speech in Canada, both online and in-person, something I'm not aware of happening in the states. Our Charter provides us with a "freedom of expression" for which the government is allowed "reasonable" grounds for censorship and speech restriction. For better or worse, there are many, many websites hosted in the US which would never fly in Canada.

908B64B197 4y ago
> We're frequently reminded growing up in Canada that despite what we'd gather from the tv/film we consume, we don't have the same freedom of speech laws that our friends in the south do. Why not simply get those rights? Looking at the brain flow to and from the US, there are a lot of Canadians voting with their feet... Americans did about 250 years ago. To me, the Canadian political system has always been a source of amazement and quite an enigma. The constitution of that country simply wasn't signed by a third of the population, and this is considered normal over there. Could anyone here in America imagine that?
- peanuty1 4y ago
  > Why not simply get those rights? Governments rarely relinquish power.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  The U.S. Constitution was signed by 0% of living Americans, and only a few dozen people that were alive when it was signed. It only came into effect when ratified by 3/4 of states. What 1/3rd are you talking about?
- 10000truths 4y ago
  No need to imagine. The slaves and indigenous people in America had no vote or representation in the drafting of the Constitution or bill of rights, either. The southern states chose to wage war rather than address the hypocrisy of owning slaves in a "free country".
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > indigenous people in America had no vote or representation in the drafting of the Constitution or bill of rights, either. At the time they weren't subject to it either, being considered separate nations by the early republic.
- joenot443 4y ago
  > Why not simply get those rights? I'm actually living in NYC on a TN visa at the moment, so in a way, I've begun the voting process. If everything goes as planned, I hope to spend the next few decades with ample time in both countries, like my folks do. I've come to realize there's a lot I love and appreciate about either, despite their flaws. We here in North America are very, very lucky.
FpUser 4y ago
>"Our Charter provides us with ..." Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides us nothing as at any point federal or provincial government can say fuck you and we will do as we please using that infamous notwithstanding clause. Examples of this already exist. Look at Ford or Legault for example. I think this notwithstanding clause is our disgrace and makes a mockery of our rights.
- mullingitover 4y ago
  > Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides us nothing as at any point federal or provincial government can say fuck you and we will do as we please using that infamous notwithstanding clause. Honestly the same paradigm exists in the US. As long as one branch of federal government can get another to agree to a Constitution-violating law or policy, the protections in the Constitution carry as much weight as a travel brochure. Similar shenanigans apply with regard to state and federal law conflicts. For example, for better or for worse, state level legalization of cannabis flies in the face of the Supremacy Clause, but that gets overlooked because the laws are something the federal government tacitly approves of (but can't get its act together to give formal blessing).
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"Honestly the same paradigm exists in the US" I am in Canada. The fact that it screwed up in the US does not make me feel any better. For what it worth I still think that basic freedoms protections are still better in the US.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  Why not simply get a constitution, by the people for the people, unanimously signed by every Province/State?
  - FpUser 4y ago
    Why don't we all sing kumbaya and be friends.

cm2187 4y ago

In fact I am not aware of any restriction on what the house of commons can vote with a simple majority. On one hand it's the longuest continuously functioning democracy, so it deserves some credit. On the other hand it's a terribly dangerous system.

astrange 4y ago

Sometimes you'll see British news discuss "constitutional" issues in politics. Since they don't have a written constitution, this is clearly cope, like when they pretend the food comes in colors other than brown. Although some of it is written down; specifically it's written in an anonymous letter to the Times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

sangnoir 4y ago

> The point is that intentionally overbroad restrictions on speech or content are a lot more difficult in the US. This depends entirely on the current mood of 5 justices on the Supreme Court, and on which side of the political spectrum an issue lands.

daveoc64 4y ago

But with a functioning majority, governments in Europe would be able to amend any such bill or constitution. It only works how it does in the USA because of political stalemate and gridlock.