That would be true if and only if the comparison is made between free speech as it is under the Trump admin vs free speech as it is under the Stramer admin.
That’s not the comparison I made at any point in time, and while I haven’t read the whole thread, I don’t see that the OP makes that claim either.
The comparison I made is between the legal framework of the United States vs the legal framework of the United Kingdom; and the reason I made that comparison is in response to you bringing up the legal framework of North Korea, which you said did “the bestest” job of protecting free speech on paper. I pointed out that this is not true, on paper or otherwise, because even on paper, the constitution of North Korea has a glaring hole, that being the fact that it contains provisions saying that they can ignore anything it says in order to maintain a Monolithic Ideological System.
Cool, I didn’t write the title of the thread nor do I have any interest in defending it. The only argument I have made is about systems. When I joined the conversation, the discussion was about systems (specifically, the claim that North Korea’s system protects free speech “on paper”, which is a completely ridiculous claim if you look at what the North Korean legal system says for even 5 minutes).
Well, the title of the thread is basically ‘(The current session of) Game A has a cheating problem’. There isn’t really any ambiguity. If you didn’t want to engage with that, why enter the thread at all?
Sure, but the point remains that that’s the claim in the OP:
The claim being made here is that you can’t cheat as much in game B as is happening in the current session of game A, because the rules prevent it, yet there is actively more cheating going on. The US constitution does not actually protect people’s rights such that rights infringements on the level of those happening in Europe/UK are impossible, because the situation regarding rights is actually worse in the US.
The hate movement he champions may very well be: in a country where the legal code protects against such hate speech, it’s possible that such a movement would not have reached the critical mass it did. You’re arguing against the NK example by pointing to additional legislation that attenuates the human rights protections in the constitution; this is the same thing. It’s the paradox of tolerance: if you protect intolerance well enough, it will eventually destroy tolerance.
Yes, the goalposts have been moving rapidly throughout the thread. The reality, however, remains: the OP made a claim about superior rights protection in the US as compared to Europe thanks to the US constitution that is, simply, factually false.
I have addressed the argument that I think is most interesting, and most worthy of debate. If you want to argue about which ancient piece of parchment has the prettier words, then that’s just not something I can muster a great deal of enthusiasm about.
That just isn’t what you said, though. Your claim was that there’s more taking back of cards (or what have you) going on in one game over the other, because the superior rules prevent it, but that’s just not the case. If you now want to walk back that claim to say that there’s no free speech deficit in UK/Europe as compared to the US, then I’m fine with that, of course.
If that wasn’t your claim to begin with, then you could’ve just reacted to my cites showing the worse human rights record of the US by saying that that’s beside the point, you’re not talking about the actual human rights situation, but about words on parchment. (Also, it would be rather pointless to post all the examples of UK infringements you did—you can’t both say it’s about the rules, and not about the play when I’m bringing up the play in the US, while pointing to the gameplay in the UK when it suits you.) In which case I would’ve just bowed out of the thread, because that’s not a terribly interesting topic of conversation to me, as compared to actual rights infringement of actual people in the actual world. But of course, that’s not what you did.
It depends on whose free speech we are talking about. Foreigners free speech is not protected when they try to enter the USA, even if they only want to watch a football game. Woe them if they ever posted something bad about the Dear Supreme Leader:
The mandatory new disclosures (not yet in force, it is only trumps plan - my remark) would apply to the 42 countries whose nationals are currently permitted to enter the US without a visa, including longtime US allies Britain, France, Australia, Germany and Japan.
Seconded. That a good law is badly applied does not speak against the law. It speaks against the ones applying it in bad faith. Or in stupidity.
Because I saw a claim that was so ignorant it nearly made me fall out of my seat - the claim that the North Korean constitution protects free speech “on paper”.
I didn’t read the whole thread, but the bit you quoted at least does not say that “the US constitution protects people’s rights such that rights infringements on the level of those happening in Europe/UK are impossible.” Is there somewhere else where the OP does say that, or is this strawman crafted from whole cloth straw?
What “debate” is there to have? Is there even a point of disagreement?
You: “The way that Trump tramples on free speech using extrajudicial means sure is disgusting.”
At least in theory, the powers of the USA’s federal and state governments are limited by their respective constitutions; especially the federal government is in (widely flouted) principle supposed to have no power not granted it. By contrast, the UK Parliament is sovereign: in theory it could enact anything whatsoever, limited only by the consciences of the MPs and/or what would spark a civil war. So while Britain in practice has a long tradition of rights, those are heavily modified by what the government there feels is “reasonable” to the preservation of social order. IOW, the UK takes the maxim that freedom of speech doesn’t extend to shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater, and considers the country as a whole the theater, and makes judgements about what constitutes shouting “fire!”.
I mean, their paper does say that free speech is protected just as much as the American paper does (and it even adds further protections!). There are additional bits that can be interpreted as circumventing this—but that wasn’t the question. And such bits are present in the American constitution as well, see the whole ‘unitary executive’ business.
I don’t know what to tell you: the bit I quoted literally says that the US constitutions ‘actually protects’ the rights far better than the ECHR. But actual rights in the US are worse off, so that’s not true. I sincerely don’t know how to read that differently.
While that’s true, it doesn’t really have anything to do with basically anything I’ve been posting, so I think we may have a gap in understanding here that’s too wide to cross.
Only if you ignore the part of their paper that says that they can ignore any other part of their paper in order to ensure the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System.
If you don’t ignore that, then their papers in fact do not protect you at all.
Those “additional bits” are part of their constitutional framework, so you cant really ignore that.
Unitary Executive Theory is a fringe legal theory used to interpret the constitution in a way that gives the executive as much power as possible. It’s not part of the American legal code in the same way that the Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System are.
You do realize that what you’ve now shifted the goals to is not at all the same thing as:
the US constitution protects people’s rights such that rights infringements on the level of those happening in Europe/UK are impossible
Right?
If you’d said what I just quoted originally, I wouldn’t have argued with you.
Fair enough, it was @Mijin who was complaining about Trump strong arming universities and businesses into censoring people - the extrajudicial means that I think we can all agree are disgusting - not you.
The analogy still works with casinos. You have Texas Holdem Cowboy Casino on one side of the street, on the other Royal Casino and Medieval Banquet Hall. The house rules at THCC explicitly say the dealer cannot take cards back after the hand has been dealt, its written right there on a big poster on the wall, rule #1. There is no such house rule at RCMBH. Fundamentally that makes the rules at THCC objectively better and more fair than the rules at RCMBH.
Yeah the dealer at RCMBH is the dull but fair “Normal” Kier and the dealer at THCC is the untrustworthy thieving scumbag “cheatin’” Donald. But that doesn’t make the rules at THCC any worse, in fact it only highlights how important they are. Cheatin Donald would absolutely love to take your cards back, he curses and says so everytime you get a winning hand. But he doesn’t because it says he can’t right there , rule #1 on the wall.
And over at RCMBH “normal” Kier does take your cards back even though no one thinks he’s trying to cheat, for some reason he thinks hands with a red queen are indecent and insists on swapping them out for black number cards. That’s unfair and wouldn’t be allowed at THCC. And if even normal Kier does that what is Donald’s equally untrustworthy cousin Nigel going to do when he gets to be dealer? He’s clearly angling for the dealer gig after Kier.
Yeah there are ways Donald cheats that aren’t prevented by the house rules at THCC, like not shuffling fairly. But that’s not the fault of the rule #1 and there’s nothing in the rules at RCMBH about shuffling. So that’s not an argument against Rule #1 or it’s efficacy.
Every application of the constitution necessarily interprets it. And under the current interpretation of the Supreme Court (whose interpretation of the constitution is the constitution) that constitutes a significant attack on the first amendment, at least by this article’s reasoning:
Likewise, if the right interpretation carries the day, then the protections of free speech in the NK constitution can be superseded. Sure, there is clearly much more intent behind the wording, here: but that’s a difference in degree, not in kind.
Again, I don’t see what you seem to be reading into this. This says that the US is protected against rights infringement on the level of Europe, as in that sort of thing doesn’t happen. But it does, and worse. That’s all.
If you think the differences between the North Korean constitution and the American constitution are ones of “degree, not kind” then there will never be a meeting of the minds here.
The OP is a comparison between the two countries’ / continents freedom of speech. So yes, I am engaging with it, and explaining why it is both logically flawed and demonstrably false.
In any case, the post that you are quoting, was my response to @griffin1977‘s analogy, in which he talked about one game being more fair than the other game, because of a different rule.
But, even in the analogy, we could only say that after we’ve looked at the rules in their totality – it shows the opposite of the point he was trying to make.
And I stopped talking about north korea many posts ago because I saw you were using this for a bad faith tactic. The simple point is that what the law says is irrelevant if it is not actually being followed in practice. Instead of just acknowledging the point, you’ve focused on spinning the 10 tenets part, even biting the bullet and claiming that vague statements about national pride is the same thing as explicitly declaring the death sentence for coming out as gay.
You’re responding to a post that wasn’t even addressed to you.
So…WTF? I’m not allowed to discuss the OP with the person who posted it, because you have decreed we must talk about something else?
Again, it’s a mystery to me how you could think that’s anything close to what I said. But I think by now I should accept that pattern and just move on.
Well, see, that’s the trouble right there: you’re either saying that honestly, or not. In both cases, I don’t see how any further interaction could be fruitful.
I dunno what the laws say, but following my argument above that actual practice matters more than exactly what’s written on the books: i don’t see the UK asking me to tell them everything I’ve ever said on social media, to use that to exclude me from traveling there.
But it doesn’t. In both the analogy and real life. The rule that says the dealer can’t takes your cards back means the dealer doesn’t take your cards back. The constitutional amendment that says the government can’t pass a law infringing your freedom of speech means the government doesn’t pass any laws infringing your freedom of speech.
You keep claiming that yet have repeatedly failed to come up with a single example of that. You posting an article by some guys online where they came up with some numbers for sociological metrics that say absolutely nothing about government infringement of free speech. This statement is simply not true, and there is no evidence to back it up.
Oh, I’ve said nothing about being done (again with the reading comprehension), I’ll still argue my position, just without any expectation of constructive engagement on your part.
But then you went on to make the claim that one game is more fair than the other game. But what about the other rules? Are we to assume they are identical?
That’s the first problem. The second is that it’s irrelevant anyway if the rules are not being followed.
The OP claimed that the 1A “actually protects peoples rights” (emphasis added). When presented with the many, many counter-examples (and they are coming on a daily basis now), it’s shifted to some meaningless claim about the US being better if it were following its own laws, and the problem is Europe doesn’t have a law that is being ignored anyway.