Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sterlingice
I'm more of a living Constitution guy, but I'd be curious to see what the more strict Constitutionalists think about creating a rule that has a primary purpose of restricting free speech. Yes, yes, there are limits to free speech in the "fire in a theater" type examples. But letting some 100 people shout "I can't breathe" in a public park until 4am hardly constitutes that.
|
It's not a restriction on speech at all. Nobody's stopping anybody from going on any TV or radio show and blasting 'I can't breathe' till the cows come home. Or distributing pamphlets, organizing a letter-writing campaign, broadcasting it across the internet (like we are doing here), etc.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sterlingice
I believe the response would be something mixed between "holy crap, you can fly in giant metal contraptions and have encyclopedias in the palm of your hand" and "how are you nincompoops still trying to take everything we said literally like we're some mythical religious text"
|
My response to this is basically that I'm not in favor of nine unelected lawyers making decisions granted to the people by the Constitution. We can amend the document any time we darned well please, but if you don't hold to what it actually says instead of what you'd like it to say until you do that, then you don't have rule of, by, and for the people. SCOTUS could wake up tomorrow and decide nobody has the right of free speech. The
only reason that's not ok is the Constitution restricts them from doing that. Give that up and it's a free-for-all.