3 ms·

There should be no interpretation because those are the axioms of our law right now. I would argue the only way to change it to allow censorship would be to cal

by ok_dad 3y ago

There should be no interpretation because those are the axioms of our law right now. I would argue the only way to change it to allow censorship would be to call a constitutional convention to change it. Adding patches to law hasn’t been working great lately due to complexity. I’d you want to change the first amendment, then you have to amend the constitution, not as laws that are in violation of the amendment. Just because they’re old axioms doesn’t mean they are obsolete!

solardev 3y ago
> I would argue the only way to change it to allow censorship would be to call a constitutional convention to change it. Adding patches to law hasn’t been working great lately due to complexity. I think this is the chicken-and-egg situation I'm getting at. We can't update the Constitution because it takes a convention to change it (which won't happen). So it just stays there for centuries, warts and all. Adding patches to laws is how laws get better over time. States do that all the time when they aren't federally preempted. Other countries too. IMO, and you can disagree, much of the Constitution is both old AND obsolete.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  A convention is still the right way, regardless of how hard it is. Sorry but you can’t just say, “this is old and obsolete and it’s hard to change it so let’s make an end run around it.” Doing so just invites bad actors to make those end runs favor themselves.
  - solardev 3y ago
    I wish I could still believe that :( In recent years, it seems like playing by the book is a surefire way to lose everything you've worked for over the decades, as one corrupt party increasingly ignores norms and laws and just sets out to destroy the country for their own gain (and it's working all too well). Wish the "good guys" had somebody like that, willing to bend the rules where necessary, but for the public good instead of personal gain.

by ok_dad 3y ago

solardev 3y ago

> I would argue the only way to change it to allow censorship would be to call a constitutional convention to change it. Adding patches to law hasn’t been working great lately due to complexity. I think this is the chicken-and-egg situation I'm getting at. We can't update the Constitution because it takes a convention to change it (which won't happen). So it just stays there for centuries, warts and all. Adding patches to laws is how laws get better over time. States do that all the time when they aren't federally preempted. Other countries too. IMO, and you can disagree, much of the Constitution is both old AND obsolete.

ok_dad 3y ago
A convention is still the right way, regardless of how hard it is. Sorry but you can’t just say, “this is old and obsolete and it’s hard to change it so let’s make an end run around it.” Doing so just invites bad actors to make those end runs favor themselves.
- solardev 3y ago
  I wish I could still believe that :( In recent years, it seems like playing by the book is a surefire way to lose everything you've worked for over the decades, as one corrupt party increasingly ignores norms and laws and just sets out to destroy the country for their own gain (and it's working all too well). Wish the "good guys" had somebody like that, willing to bend the rules where necessary, but for the public good instead of personal gain.