Subj : Re: Most memorable modern
To : Boraxman
From : MRO
Date : Thu May 22 2025 06:55 pm
Re: Re: Most memorable modern
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu May 22 2025 10:01 pm
>
> Read the Second Amendment. Again, it says that a right cannot be
> infringed. It prohibits an action.
>
> They understood that in order for "rights" to exist, you must prevent
> people from infringing them. Only this can make a "right" real.
>
> Declaration of rights alone are meaningless. The Soviet Union is a
> good example of this. They too declared that people had Freedom of
> Speech, even more enthusiastically than the US Constituion, but it did
now i have to read the second one?!!?
i told you i can't read.
i think you are looking at this through a weird lens; we have laws, tons and
tons of laws. laws on top of laws. overlapping laws. old laws. those
complex laws state what our rights are and how it's to be handled.
we then have judges to interpret the laws when things go caca.
> Declaration of rights alone are meaningless. The Soviet Union is a
> good example of this. They too declared that people had Freedom of
> Speech, even more enthusiastically than the US Constituion, but it did
> NOT prevent the state from infringing on that right. So the US had
> freedom of speech, and the Soviet Union didn't.
>
our entire legal system is not the declaration of independance
> Free Speech was understood to be important before the First Amendment
> was drafted. Its philosophical roots came from a realisation that
> society needs Free Speech, because the right to Free Speech allows
> pathological ideas to be challenged. This is the misunderstanding I
> think. It has been turned into "individual rights", but the purpose
> wasn't keeping the government out of your life. Free Speech has a
> *social* utility, which they understood because they saw the ill
> effects of religious and monarchical power structures that shielded
> themselves from challenge.
you are interpreting our free speech laws incorrectly. you are free to say what you want. it wont protect you from getting canned from your job if they decide you are not a fit to what they represent. You are only protected if you are part of a protected category of person and your rights have been violated based on your race, origin, age, sex, disability.
> If you have already accepted that there are exceptions being able to
> freely fire people, why are you reluctant to include an individuals
> beliefs and statements as protected?? You've already accepted that
> right is not absolute, which I agree with.
it's (being fired from the workplace because of speech) not an exemption because there is no actual violation of our laws.
that's just how it is. it's only a violation based on what it is and if it violates a protected class of person.
> By prohibiting people being fired for their speech you neuter to some
> degree this effect. This is precisely why you need laws to protect
> people from being fired for their speech! If an organisation DOES
so far it hasn't been an issue except people were canceled for dumb shit
during those witch hunts.
if it is an issue it can become a bill and be put through our system.
---
� Synchronet � ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
