4 ms·

Curiously there was vehement argument at the time of the Bill of Rights, that enshrining a fixed list of rights might mean that no other rights could exist. Whi

Curiously there was vehement argument at the time of the Bill of Rights, that enshrining a fixed list of rights might mean that no other rights could exist. Which is actually pretty close to what happened. E.g. the right to freedom of speech is generally not enforced except as the government itself will not enact laws to restrict it. Individuals, corporations are still free to censure other individuals. So we don't have freedom of speech in that sense. Thanks, Bill of Rights! So maybe not the 'best way' of ensuring rights.

hiatus 3y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but the bill of rights is specific to actions taken by the government. Of course individuals and corporations are free to censure individuals on their platforms as long as they are not doing so at the direction of the government. A kid can't waive the constitution in their parent's face when they barge into their room without knocking, even though they have a right to privacy and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
gostsamo 3y ago
Your comment has two separate arguments, if I'm not missing something: 1. rights do not exist outside of the constitution 2. freedom of speech is not enough as defined now.* Regarding 1, you should propose where else would rights be defined and defended. Currently, the issue could be mitigated, if the constitution is opened for additions and closed for deletions. Not absolutely, but sufficiently close to discourage abuse. Regarding freedom of speech, the issue is not the right itself, but the fact that matters of public debate happen on a few private properties. The right of property and personal liberty means that you cannot force someone to do your work for free, so if you want free public space, this space should be either provided by the government or it should be a shared public responsibility a.k.a distributed social network. * in the US, I'm not from there.

hiatus 3y ago

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but the bill of rights is specific to actions taken by the government. Of course individuals and corporations are free to censure individuals on their platforms as long as they are not doing so at the direction of the government. A kid can't waive the constitution in their parent's face when they barge into their room without knocking, even though they have a right to privacy and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

gostsamo 3y ago

Your comment has two separate arguments, if I'm not missing something: 1. rights do not exist outside of the constitution 2. freedom of speech is not enough as defined now.* Regarding 1, you should propose where else would rights be defined and defended. Currently, the issue could be mitigated, if the constitution is opened for additions and closed for deletions. Not absolutely, but sufficiently close to discourage abuse. Regarding freedom of speech, the issue is not the right itself, but the fact that matters of public debate happen on a few private properties. The right of property and personal liberty means that you cannot force someone to do your work for free, so if you want free public space, this space should be either provided by the government or it should be a shared public responsibility a.k.a distributed social network. * in the US, I'm not from there.