For starters I’m British (I have dual British UsS Citizenship) so this is an false assumption on your part. I know the British constitution very well
But again you argument was an imaginary discussion between two imaginary people, where one imaginary ignorant participant said…
So what is this magical imaginary form of free speech that is protected by the British constitution and not the American Constitution?
With filling in those blanks you have just written an imaginary conversation by people that only exist in your head, which is not a convincing argument for anything.
This continues to completely miss the point, that @Half_Man_Half_Wit put so well: frickin North Korea has the bestest free speech if we’re going by what’s on paper. What should actually matter is the reality of who has free speech, and who is at risk of deportation, funding cut, visas being rescinded, broadcast licenses revoked and arrest on the basis of political views?
Very good point, it’s completely meaningless to have constitution which has protections for fundamental rights but then have a massive exception that says the government can ignore them whenever they feel like it. For the North Korean constitution it’s the “Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System”, for the ECHR it’s stuff like the freedom expression clause having a laundry list of exceptions including “protection of health or morals” and “prevention of disorder or crime”.
That example makes the point of the OP very succinctly: both these constitutional protections (the North Korean constitution and the ECHR) are worse at protecting citizens rights than the bill of rights in the US constitution.
He didn’t say just that North Korea had free speech protections in their constitution, he said:
What makes the supposed North Korean freedom of speech “bestest” (sic) compared to a every other country with free speech protections?
Oooooh, in other words, even on paper, the North Korean constitution is not in fact “the bestest” at protecting free speech. Thank you for the clarification.
Various pro-gun sites have recently reported the case of a British tourist who visited the United States, went to a gun range, and posed for a picture of him holding a shotgun that got posted online. Which got him arrested upon return to the UK.
Various charges were leveled at him including "possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence” and “any writing/sign/visible representation with intent to cause harassment/alarm or distress”. Apparently all charges were eventually dropped as insupportable; but not only was it “Orwellian” that he was arrested and charged in the first place, but it would seem to indicate that the UK government believes it can apply UK law to the conduct of any of its subjects* committed anywhere in the world.
*I think “subjects” rather than “citizens” is appropriate in this case.
His point, unless I gravely misunderstood it, is that the NK constitution protects free speech perfectly well but that doesn’t matter because the government of North Korea ignores those protections.
But it sounds like in reality it protects free speech if and only if that protection doesn’t conflict with the Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System. Which means that even on paper it does not actually protect free speech.
The US constitution doesn’t have anything like these ten principles. thats why the US constitution, even on paper, protects free speech to a much greater degree than North Korea. This is relevant, because if Trump had a carve out that said “free speech but only if it doesn’t conflict with maintaining the nation’s ideological unity”, you can get your ass Trump would use that carve out.
I understand that @Mijin did not actually mean that North Korea has free speech, but he is flat out incorrect about the idea that North Korea’s constitution is “the bestest” at protecting free speech; it doesn’t actually protect it at all. EVEN ON PAPER.
If we passed a new amendment tomorrow that said “the First Amendment does not apply to anything that would weaken the monolithic ideology of MAGA which must be the ideology of the United States of America”, then our constitution would no longer be protecting free speech, no matter what the first amendment says taken alone..
I can’t reply properly right now, but the short of it is that some here are trying hard to miss what is actually a very simple point: that what a document, even the constitution says, is less important than how freedoms are respected in practice.
So the argument about, essentially, “The UK has less freedom of speech because they don’t have a first amendment” is inherently wrong headed.
On NK specifically, it’s an example of paper laws not counting for anything. The ten tenets are just about glorifying the state, so a simple reading of those laws plus their constitution would imply Koreans are free to come out as gay, for instance. The reality is people have been executed for coming out.
The constitution does; the ten principles aren’t part of it. They apparently gained official status only in 1974, two years after the constitution—which just illustrates the point: what’s written down matters little if those in power decide they don’t want to be bound by it, and have sufficient power to do so unopposed.
That’s true, but that doesn’t mean that what is written is not important at all.
The UK doesn’t have a first amendment but freedom of speech protection in the UK does exist, because of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
The UK has weaker freedom of speech protection than the US because Article 10 has more qualifications than the First Amendment does.
On paper, the NK law says that the 10 Principles supercede the constitution, so on paper, NK law does not protect any speech that it judges to violate the 10 Principles.
The Ten Principles supercede the constitution.
Right, they supercede it. That makes them an even more foundational legal document than the Constitution of North Korea.
If Trump created the MAGA Tenants and passed a law saying that the MAGA Tenants supercede the constitution, you’d be a fool to say “well the Third Amendment protects my right to refuse to quarter troops” if the Third MAGA Tenant said that actually this rule does not apply to MAGA Troopers.
How does it illustrate your point when they wrote down the rules that supercede the constitution?
I get that they don’t call the Ten Principles a “constitution”, but that’s exactly what they are, if they supercede the actual constitution.
Here’s the difference. If Trump throws Jimmy Kimmel in jail for his speech, he’s violating the American legal system. If Jim Jong Un throws a North Korean comedian in prison, he is acting in accordance with the North Korean legal system. Because that system is defined by the ten principles that say he can do that.
This is what makes the American legal system better than the North Korean legal system, even though Trump is violating our system and Kim is upholding his.
That is fundamentally untrue and not bourne out by what’s happening in practice. Even if it was true if you have a reasonable democratic government that fundamentally believes in civil rights (it’s not, as shown by the actions of the current Labour government in the UK w.r.t. Palestine Action) it’s absolutely not true when you have an unreasonable government that actively hates civil rights.
Because the constitution was in force when that was done, and didn’t prevent it, thus illustrating that even though those principles go against the constitution, those in power were able to give them official status, meaning that the constitution was unable to prevent this.
Right, but again, they were made official doctrine after the constitution was in force, thus showing that the constitution with all its protections was incapable of preventing its own effective invalidation.
Again, the point is simple: despite some of the strongest ‘on the books’ protections of free expression, a large body of scholarship shows that America ranks below a large portion of Europe in terms of how free you actually are. That’s because just being on the books isn’t sufficient to actually offer any protection. There are lots of laws on the books that don’t form effective legislation: without enforcement, words are just words. The DPRK calling itself democratic doesn’t mean it is!
Because the constitution explicitly allowed them to do that, the constitution was specifically stated as the ideas of Kim Il Sung-Kim and the state was give the power to “perfect” those ideas
What are the rules for amending the constitution in the North Korean constitution? Did they follow those rules when they created the document that superceded it?*
In the US, if you wanted to pass a Ten MAGA Principles that superceded the constitution, you’d need to go through the amendment process which is an incredibly high bar to clear. What is the bar for North Korea? Even if a given assembly needs to pass the amendment with a two thirds vote, is that assembly as independent from the President as the House and Senate are?
*The answer is that a NK amendment requires 2/3rds of the Supreme People’s Assembly to vote (compared to 2/3rds of both the House and Senate or 2/3rds of the states) and the SPA from its inception was a rubber stamp rather than a coequal branch of government with checks and balances on the executive. So yes, they followed the rules when they superceded the constitution, because their intentionally shitty constitution made it very easy for them to do so!
Right. The North Korean Ten Principles superceding the Constitution aren’t a failure of the system; they are the system working as designed. On paper and in fact.
This is silly. You’re saying that they can overrule the protections within the constitution because of the ten principles, which they however could only put into place because the constitution allowed them to do so. That’s just circular—if the constitution already allows them to do what they want, they don’t need the ten principles.
I don’t know, and it’s obviously beside the point. I reacted to the silly claim that just because something is written in the constitution, it is thereby automatically protected by showing an example where something’s written in the constitution and is very obviously not protected. It’s not what’s written, it’s what happens that matters.
Besides, to indulge this obfuscatory tangent a little longer, Trump is already claiming that under the unitary executive theory, he can do what he wants, and that his will effectively supersedes what’s written in the constitution, e.g. the birthright citizenship. Will this in the end be successful? Well, I don’t know, that’s for the supreme court to decide: but that’s exactly the point—if they decide to go along with it, then that’s what will happen, no matter what’s actually written in the constitution.