Egregoros

@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I know what you're talking about because for example someone in america might say that child porn is illegal so it isn't free speech and someone in germany says well then holocaust denial isn't free speech because it's illegal, and then you have to figure out how to explain how it's actually different without appealing to some cultureally specific value that undermines a universal principle. or something. I'm not saying you don't have a point just that I don't think it's so strong to say no one believes in it in reality.

@RustyCrab @bajax @scathach I have read several supreme court rulings and transcripts. I am not a lawyer but you can work through the rational process, or obvious lack of it, in them. a lot of them are surprisingly badly reasoned. but a lot of the speech ones are really good and have accumulated over time into a fairly-coherent idea. I like it and mostly agree with it. there are places it has unprincipled exceptions but a lot fo the exceptions are for practical governance reasons. not all of them.

tons of people don't boil free speech down to just my speech. they make exceptions for a lot of things for a lot of reasons but a lot of people very clearly believe you have a right to voice an opinion even if they think it's wrong. a lot of people don't have a coherent idea of it but a lot of people do even if it varies. there are people that say they support free speech then just punish their enemies. they are just hypocrites, that doesn't undermine the concept. you can always argue over the line. but I found most of the time it's a trick. "oh this person got punished for criticising" and you look closer and they just pissed off someone with their speech and dug up a skeleton in their closet and legally fried them. not a free speech issue in reality.

the reason I say its this way for everything is I have argued with somebody about almost everything over my entire life and if you go long enough every argument ends with "I can't get any further without just appealing to my prerational value system, I want my values not your values this argument is over". but some peoples values include your freedom to hold/express opposing ones.

@sun@shitposter.world @RustyCrab@clubcyberia.co @bajax@baj.ax @scathach@stereophonic.space

surprisingly badly reasoned

virtually every president, Jefferson and onward, has complained about how trash the supreme court is and how prone they are to pulling shit out of their asses. Of course with the notable exception of Lincoln who somehow got everything he wanted.
We were warned by the likes of George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and Luther Martin exactly how this would turn out. There's a reason they wanted juries and for multiple different bodies to fill different seats. Among other alterations ignored by the federalists at the time.

@RustyCrab@clubcyberia.co @sun@shitposter.world @bajax@baj.ax @scathach@stereophonic.space though if you are wondering what it means as it's proponents intended, it would be quite extreme in its protection. Because the point is that congress can't make these kinds of decisions. It is the states that make these decisions. You actually have no freedom of speech at the state level, even if the supreme court likes to pull imaginary clauses out of their asses to say you do.
The State sets the restrictions and definitions of what speech is and what is allowed.
The State gets to issue out punishments, trials, and woodchippering.
The federal government gets jack all to say about it.
Because Congress can make no law and federal courts cannot enforce it.

No matter how extreme of an example you can think of, it probably is protected from federal power (as intended and on paper). The only real exception I can think of would be declarations of treason.
Not that the federal government cares of course.

@sun @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach

>Some are collective rights and some are individual

Not properly understood. The Bill of Rights was declarative and restrictive on the government; the 14th, just applied that on the states.

The worst SCOTUS rulings involved government power, and not strictly speaking, the Bill of Rights.

The three worst, IMHO:

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)

Reverse those decisions, and the centralized rot is limited.

@sun @bajax @RustyCrab @lolitechengineer @scathach

The original principles of the Civil War were that those in the North opposed the African ideology of slavery while the Southern elites were addicted to the means by which they oppressed poor Whites.

It was only when the North had the moral upper hand, when it came to foreign relations of the Europeans, that they openly denounce the Confederacy’s addiction to African norms and crushed the rich elite’s, due in no small part to the poor White Southerner’s help.

The reality is that chattel slavery was alien to our culture and those elite who benefited by it were an alien-influenced cancer that had to be culled.

And it was culled.