Moderating:
It’s apparent you disagree with his cite, but getting really snarky about it is rarely conducive to a productive discussion. Please dial it back. Thanks.
Another cite: the world press freedom index has the US down in 57th place, way below most of Europe, and sandwiched between Sierra Leone and Gambia.
Europe does have free speech issues, I wouldn’t claim otherwise, but right now it’s nothing like as repressive as in the US.
Though the fact that Trump hasn’t cancelled the bill of rights shows that it does protect human rights, even in these circumstances. He would absolutely love to make it illegal to say bad things about Donal J Trump, or ban the Democratic party as terrorists, or institute a hijab ban, but he hasn’t because he knows if he did, even his tame SCOTUS would strike it down.
IMO the problem lies in all the other stuff that is not written down explicitly. The reason American democracy is in imminent danger and may not survive is all the checks and balances that were never written down and just relied on the actors involved being at least somewhat honest and reasonable, and the laws that gave massive power to government agencies (like ICE) just trusting that they wouldn’t be abused.
No; it just shows that he can and will ignore it, and that it doesn’t matter anymore.
So for the umpteenth time explain where he has. When has Trump signed a law making criticism of him illegal? When has he declared the Democratic party a terrorist organization and made supporting them illegal? When has made wearing the hijab in public illegal?
Are you saying it’s Trump incredible respect for human rights that has stopped him doing all that? Of course not he’d do all that and more tomorrow if the bill of rights (even with the current collection of cowardly far right partisans in majority in SCOTUS) wasn’t stopping him
Why bother? He just punishes people without bothering with signing laws. We don’t live under the rule of law anymore.
That’s not what it shows. Why bother trying to “cancel” the Bill of Rights when you can just ignore it, the same way that Trump has been ignoring laws and unwritten norms his entire life? Except this time, in Trump 2.0, the scale of the illegalities has been dialed up to 11. What’s the Constitution doing about it?
People keeping making this claim but it’s objectively false. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is (as pointed out in the OP) a well defined concise set of limits, protecting the people from laws thier government makes that would infringe a specific set rights. So to “ignore it” Trump would need to successfully pass a law or decree that directly infringes one of those rights. If you are claiming he’s ignoring it then point out the bill where Trump makes it illegal to criticize him? Or declared the Democratic party a terrorist organization and made supporting them illegal? Or made wearing the hijab in public illegal? He’s hasn’t because the bill of rights is still functioning and he knows he is not able to ignore it no matter how much he wants to. I bet he’s so god-damned jealous when he discovers European heads of states are able to pass laws like that without being stymied by constitutions like America’s
The rest of the checks and balances in the US system of government are not worth jack sh*t, but this bit has actually passed the most extreme stress test.
Wut?? It doesn’t require a “bill” to ignore the Constitution, it just requires … ignoring it!
Trump’s constitutional violations have become even more egregious since this article was published, as the autocrat gains confidence in what he can get away with.
The Trump administration has been sued for some of those, ultimately resting the final resolution on the Supreme Court, a court heavily biased to Trump ideologies. Legal arguments in Trump’s favour are funded by virtually limitless money, including support from major law firms from which he recently extorted free services. So at this point the Constitution is effectively nothing more than an ancient parchment rotting in a vault.
The value of constitutional protections by themselves is disclaimed by several respected academic studies that have already been cited, placing the US far down in the list of countries where freedom of expression effectively really exists. Since those studies were published, the election of Trump to a second term has only made things worse – much worse.
The Bill of Rights is dead. Laws don’t matter anymore, only money and force; and soon as the US transitions fully into fascism, it’ll only be force. There are no rights, there are no protections.
That’s like saying someone is “ignoring the speed limit” when they aren’t in fact going faster than the speed limit.
The US bill of rights explicitly stops the government passing laws or decrees that infringe certain human rights. And it a very good thing that is doing it’s job despite a narcissistic fascist dickwad seizing control of the US government.
That doesn’t mean said there isn’t a whole bunch said dickwad can and will do to bring down the US Democratic system of government and f*ck over the US people. But right now I can call Trump a narcissistic fascist dickwad (despite it being hateful thing to say that is being said with the express intention of causing both alarm and distress) without commiting a crime, and I have the Bill of Rights to thank for that.
No, it’s like saying somebody is ignoring the speed limit when they are driving twice as fast, in a tank, over crowds of schoolchildren. You keep going on about “what laws have been passed” as if laws mattered anymore. Trump ignores laws.
I recall a crusty old law professor at law school, who said, “Rule of Law means that the government cannot make shit up to justify its actions.”
The US government is making shit up to justify its actions.
Therefore, the US government is no longer a rule of law government.
It’s just that easy.
…no.
It’s more like this:
John drives his car faster than the speed limit. The police see it, gets him on speed camera, records it on video, and even get a confession out of him, but instead of arresting him, they ignore it.
OR:
The police go to arrest him. And John simply says “No. You are not arresting me today.” And starts to drive off. And when the police try to stop him a bunch of armed secret service agents step out of the darkness and tell the cops “no, you are not arresting John. If you try, we will kill you.”
So the cops put out an arrest warrant for John. But John also happens to be the most powerful person on the planet. And no matter what they do, nobody cares. John just continues to do his thing.
They get ignored.
This is what “ignoring it” means. The laws still exist. It’s just it’s completely meaningless. It’s just a piece of paper. We only ever complied with the laws in the first place because, as a society, we just kinda agreed to it.
But that’s also a weakness in the system. It’s weak all over the world. The constitution isn’t special in that regard. It only has relevance as long as we all agree to uphold it. The minute the people in power decide “hold on, we just aren’t going to follow the rules anymore” there isn’t anything anyone can do about it.
Yeah, but what if the President just decides to infringe on certain human rights?
He doesn’t have to pass a law or decree. He just infringes on those rights.
That’s what “ignoring it” means.
And that’s where it all falls apart. Its what we are seeing now.
If the President decides to ignore the Bill of Rights, to infringe on certain human rights, what can any of us do about it?
We can take him to court. But because MAGA have spent decades on a strategy of taking OVER the courts, there is a decent chance that they will win there anyway.
But even if he doesn’t win, who is going to stop him? They aren’t going to arrest the President of the United States.
Now, the system hasn’t completely fallen over yet. It isn’t all over yet. The courts are still sometimes ruling against the Administration, and the Administration, after dragging its heels, in many cases will comply. There are a few reasons for that, but not really relevant to the matter of “free speech”, so I won’t bring it up.
But the TLDR version is that the systems only hold up because ultimately we’ve all just agreed to do so. But if the most powerful people in the country just decide to ignore the rule of law, there is very little, short of a revolution, most of us can do about that. Free speech is as fragile in the United States of America as it is in most parts of the world.
Bringing it back to what prompted this thread in the first place, I don’t think you will find a single person that has publicly spoken out in support of the Palestinian people who hasn’t faced negative consequences for doing so. Those negative consequences have a chilling effect. And that’s all entirely constitutional.
How public is “public". I know lots of people who have spoken out in support of the Palestinian people who haven’t faced negative consequences. They marched in protests and told everyone who would listen what their position was.
One woman backed off from joining an encampment after her university told the students to disperse (something the university, as the property owner, had the right to do) because they threatened negative consequences. But she didn’t run into trouble for her speech.
I also know that a number of students in the US on visas have, in fact, faced negative consequences, including being kidnapped by armed thugs and dropped into a prison. And some legal permanent residents have, as well. And yes, that’s A BAD THING. But the statement i quoted is false.
No that is the exact opposite of what happened. As in this metaphor no one was driving over the speed limit. The explicit concise law that says you can’t drive over 45 miles an hour did it’s job, that is demonstrably true. This rich white well connected douchebag John might have been drunk and changing lanes without signalling but he wasn’t speeding. Yes, we should have similarly concise explicit laws against those things too.
That’s not in any way a valid criticism of the speed limit law which did its job way better than the other “drive as fast as is safe unless you have a good reason to go faster or you fancy having a drag race,” laws other towns have.
…did you ask any of these people if they faced any negative consequences?
For example, I faced negative consequences for merely posting my opinion here on these boards. The accusations made me physically ill. Would you have known about that if I didn’t explicitly tell you?
That’s clearly hyperbolic exaggeration, I personally know this is not the case, plenty of people have spoken out in support of the Palestinian cause without facing negative consequences (myself included).
But more to the point that’s totally irrelevant the first amendment was never intended to protect people from all negative consequences of their speech. It only protects you from the state punishing you for using your freedom of speech. I am spectacularly glad that the first amendment, even under Trump, protects me this for example:
Remember this is happening under the most moderate centrist government imaginable, what do you think Trump would be doing right now if the US constitution allowed him to do stuff like that?
…I’ll say the same thing to you. Did you ask them? And what public statements in support of the Palestinian cause have you made if you don’t mind me asking?
Because when I spoke out I got accused of blood libel, of anti-Semitism, and I’m not allowed to say the word Nakba in the Gaza discussion thread. And I got off easy.
In other words: “free speech” isn’t really free speech.
Stuff like this.
And calling Starmers Labour the most “moderate centrist government imaginable” is laughable. Theyare destroying trans rights. They’ve attacked the poor, people with disabilities. They are conservative in all but name.
In your scenario.
But your scenario doesn’t describe what we are talking about at all. I posted an alternate scenario to illustrate what we are talking about.
Because we aren’t criticising the speed limit law.
The law itself isn’t relevant. Because the law is being ignored.
I’m close friends with some of those people, and read their private discord musings about topics like “mental health", so i think I’d know.
And "someone insulted me for stating my opinions” isn’t the kind of negative consequences that free speech laws are intended to protect you from anyway.