And if I’m killed for coming out as gay?
Why can’t you just acknowledge the simple point that what’s on paper is less important than what actual freedoms are protected in practice?
For some reason they thought they did need it. Don’t ask me why, any more than why they don’t proclaim Kim to be the Emperor of NK.
No that was in the constitution. The constitution itself was specifically stated as the ideas of Kim Il Sung-Kim and the state was give the power to “perfect” those ideas. The 10 principles was that “perfecting”
…what?
If 2/3rds of the states pass a new amendment that says “we were just kidding about freedom of speech”, they’d be acting within the constitution - the constitution gives a method for amendment - and they’d remove protection that was once there.
Just like how the constitution didn’t ban alcohol, and then it did, and then it didn’t again, all within the framework of the constitution - because the rules on how to change the rules are part of the rules.
In North Korea, their rules make amending the rules to “whatever the fuck the Supreme Leader wants” incredibly easy. From the North Korean perspective, this is a feature, not a bug. That’s precisely how their constitution is designed.
And that’s why it’s incredibly silly to say that “the North Korean constitution has incredibly strong Free Speech protections on paper!”. No, it doesn’t. The North Korean constitution gives a great big exception to all protections it grants, that being the Ten Principles.
If you’d read my entire post, you’d see.
The example you gave is an incredibly shitty example because the North Korean rules as written specifically do not protect any speech that conflicts with the Ten Principles.
Again, it’s incredibly relevant, because if Trump censors a guy he doesn’t like he is breaking American law, and if Kim censors a guy he doesn’t like he is acting in accordance with North Korean law.
And this is all in the written rules.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. By the rules laid out in the constitution, the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is the Constitution. That’s not arbitrary, that’s how we wrote the rules. The fact that it works this way is a product of the rules as they are written.
What legal reasoning does the North Korean state give for executing gay people? Does it use powers given to them by the Ten Principles?
I’ll answer that for you: when North Korea executes gay people, they do it because they consider homosexuality to be a product of Western decadent Capitalism, hence being openly gay makes it harder to “Establish a Monolithic Ideological System”.
Because when North Korea kills gay people, they are doing it because their laws as written and as interpreted by North Korea’s courts allow them to do it.
If I was trying to reform North Korea’s laws to make homosexuality acceptable, I would start by repealing the Ten Principles since that’s the law that North Korea executes gay people under.
Oh you’re just going to make something up that’s not written? And you think this supports the argument that what matters is what’s in the Constitution?
…Although you still haven’t bit the bullet and said it yet, just a pile of deflections. Does the actual policing of speech in practice matter less, more, or the same, than what’s written in law?
No? The Ten Principles say that North Korea can punish you if you go against their socialist ideology and their socialist ideology says that being gay is a decadent Capitalist plot.
Cite:
If I wanted to protect gay people in North Korea and had the power to change North Korean law, I would get rid of the government’s ability to kill people who are influenced by capitalism (IE, the Ten Principles). And then I’d get rid of the Supreme Leader’s ability to modify the law back to whatever he wants it to be essentially at will.
The actual policing of speech in practice is based on what is written in the law.
For example, when Trump deports people who say things he doesn’t like, he is able to do that because the law as written says that visas are granted by the discretion of the government. He is able to do this because that’s how the law is written. If we don’t like it, and I don’t, the solution is to change the law as written.
Is your claim, @Mijin, that written laws don’t matter and governments just do whatever they want? Because the North Korean example shows, even governments that DO just do whatever they want, they take the time to put up a fig leaf of legal procedure.
The law doesn’t bind Kim Jong Un not because laws don’t matter but because the law in North Korea allows him to essentially change the law at will.
Leaders in countries with legal codes that can’t be changed on a whim don’t have that same power.
The policing of law in practice is a direct result of what’s written into law and allowed by the constitution. Thats how police work. A policeman doesn’t randomly decide that wearing a purple shirt is illegal and decide to arrest you for it.
The North Korean law and constitution explicitly allows the state to execute you and your family for listening to K Pop, so that’s what happens
In the UK the law says the state can imprison you for saying nice things about Palestine Action, and the constitution allows it. So that’s what happens.
The US constitution protects Americans from the state doing both those things, even if the state is run by Donald Trump. So it’s better.
This is the opposite of your point. The laws don’t mention LGBT; neither the Constitution nor the 10 tenets.
In practice they say that being gay is against the ideals of the state, and punish it.
By your logic, no matter what happens we can say it’s enshrined in law, regardless of whether it is or not, if someone simply asserts that it is.
Likewise.
Where does it say that? Where does the Russian constitution say it can kill you for being in an opposition party?
So you won’t get arrested for protesting against the Gaza war? Or protesting ICE?
What is enshrined in North Korean law is that they can lock you up for anything they consider to go against the state’s ideology. This is in the rules as written. Any time you say “look, the rules say speech is protected!” I will respond “no, they don’t; the rules say speech is protected IF AND ONLY IF it does not conflict with the superceding rule that says you cannot go against the Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System”.
NO THEY DO NOT. I don’t know how you are so confident when you are so clearly wrong.
North Korea doesn’t execute gay people because being gay is a crime. North Korea doesn’t have a concept of sexual orientation in law, and being gay is not a crime per se.
When North Korea executes gay people, in practice, they say that engaging in homosexual acts (note, not “being gay”, because that concept simply doesn’t exist in the North Korean legal system) is an example of Western Capitalist decadence, and then they execute them for that.
Again, cite:
What are you talking about?
The law in North Korea outright says that anything the state decides doesn’t agree with the Ten Principles can be a capital crime. That IS the law in North Korea. Not because someone asserted that, but because in the North Korean system the Ten Principles are the highest law.
Right here, this is the full text of the law that North Korea currently executes people who listen to KPOP or watch foreign movies under:
What the hell are you talking about here?
Putin is acting illegally according to Russian law when he executes political opponents. That’s why he resorts to extrajudicial assassinations of rivals. Russia has not officially executed anyone since 1996.
In the US? No, you don’t get arrested simply for protesting; you’d have to do some illegal action above and beyond just protesting for the government to arrest you and successfully prosecute you.
Unlike in Britain, where expressing support for Palestine Action is illegal and can get you in trouble even if all you did was hold up a sign at a place where you’re allowed to protest.
If you cross the line from protected speech to commiting a crime (e.g. obstruction, criminal damage, etc.). And yeah it’s super problematic that it’s the cops call on what what that line is and they face almost no repercussions if they choose blatantly wrongly. But that’s only an argument against the US constitution if the UK (or North Korean) constitution did protect you from that, but it doesn’t.
It’s not as if the British cops are like "these guys are smashing up a Macdonalds, but they aren’t saying nice things about Palestine Action, so there’s nothing we can do they are protected by the Magna Carta 
". In fact the powers of the British cops to crack down on protesters are even greater than the American cops (the riot act was only repealed in the 1970s!)
The British constitution doesn’t protect you from either being imprisoned for saying nice things or being arrested and beaten up by a riot police at a protest.
The US constitution protects you for one of those things, so it’s better
(frustration deleted)
I’ll come back to this.
And the North Korean constitution doesn’t protect you from either, because saying nice things about someone Kim doesn’t like (and CERTAINLY protesting) goes against the Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System, which is the highest law in the land.
Also, I think this distinction between the Ten Principle and the Constitution of North Korea is silly. Generally, a constitution is the highest law of the land. In North Korea, the highest law of the land is not the constitution, it is the Ten Principles. I would argue that if anything the Ten Principles are the true constitution of North Korea.
I think maybe I’ve been too indirect so far, so let me try and be as clear as possible. I can do whatever I want, as long as nobody tries to stop me, no matter what’s written anywhere. If somebody tries to stop me, they must first be able to do so. If nobody is—functionally, actually, or simply effectively—I can do whatever I want. It’s that simple. What the constitution says doesn’t matter if nobody will or can enforce it. We know this for a fact: American protections of free speech on paper are some of the strongest around, yet the US lags behind a large portion of the world, notably most of Europe, in the actual protection of free expression. That there are words to the effect that you can say anything written down somewhere isn’t going to help you if you’re subject to repression when you actually do. Everything else is just magical thinking.
You’ve said this multiple times but utterly failed to show any actual examples.
Can you be arrested for protesting in the US? Yes. Can you be arrested for protesting in the UK? yes
Can an immigrant be arbitrarly deported in the US? Yes
Can an immigrant be arbitrarly deported in the UK?
Yes
Do you face social repercussions (including losing your job) for expressing an opinion in the US?
Yes
Do you face social repercussions (including losing your job) for expressing an opinion in the UK?
Yes
Can you get sent to prison for expressing an opinion in the US?
No
Can you get sent to prison for expressing an opinion in the UK?
Yes
It’s that simple. The Constitution of the US isn’t a perfect protection from any kind of state oppression. But it’s better at protecting its people’s fundamental rights from the state than the alternatives.
I have linked several times to the research of independent groups of scientists on the matter, providing data rather than anecdotes. If you have any contravening research, you have so far neglected to show it.
And seeing as we don’t live in a compete anarchy (or libertarian Utopia) where the only thing that can stop you doing something is encountering someone better armed than you, what’s written down is how we decide whether the state can stop you doing that thing or not (or actually punish you for it)
Thats how society works. We have laws that are written down, and above them we have set of constitutional protections, ensuring you can’t pass laws that violate fundamental rights just because you have majority, those are also written down (even in the UK they are written down, just not in one place). Written constitutional protections that are concise, unambiguous and don’t have huge open ended exceptions are better than ones that are voluminous, ambiguous and come with a huge list of open ended exceptions.
You posted the opinions of some guy on the Internet (sorry, some guy on the Internet who works at a university). That’s not an example of where the UK constitution does a better job of protecting its peoples civil rights from the state than the US bill of rights. You just stated that as a fact and said it must be true because someone on the Internet says so.
No. I posted peer reviewed, published research, see e.g. here.
Do you have a link to the actual methodology? I can’t access anything other than the abstract at your link.
I’m curious because on their website the V-DEM organization describes this study as:
They also mention that these ratings come from something like 200-300 different indices.
It doesn’t sound at all like they’re ranking countries by how free their speech is specifically.
And from your first link, here’s how they define the Freedom of Expression index:
This index, produced by Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem), combines information on freedom of discussion, freedom of academic and cultural expression, media censorship, media self-censorship, media bias, harassment of journalists, and the existence of critical and different perspectives in print and broadcast media.
I bolded specific metrics that don’t necessarily have anything to do with government censorship. (Obviously bias or a lack of “different perspectives” could be down to censorship; or it could be caused by something else entirely).
Other factors like “harassment of journalists” could have to do with freedom of speech (if the government is doing the harassing) or could have nothing to do with it (if random people are the ones harassing journalists).