Comment by throwawaymaths
20 days ago
transparency and the obligation to document did not really exist as concepts in statecraft when the first amendment was conceived. there is a very tenuous relationship with the right to petition. perhaps we should create an amendment enshrining those values (as some states have in their constutions)
the best lede is the one where visas are being revoked. clear abuse of the amendment.
even the libel ones, while shitty, seem in line with existing libel laws (and maybe it's worth a discussion if libel is constitutionally protected). just because the president is president does not mean they must relinquish the right to legal redress for existing protections that the rest of us enjoy.
> there is a very tenuous relationship with the right to petition. perhaps we should create an amendment enshrining those values
The USA already did: The first amendment literally includes the right to petition one's government, along with the other rights listed in the article as section headers.
> just because the president is president does not mean they must relinquish the right to legal redress for existing protections that the rest of us enjoy.
Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
> The USA already did:
you missed my point, clearly. if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first.
> Libel of public figures literally requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
to the point where the right to redress is abrogated?
> if FOIA protects a current constitutional right, it is at best the tenth amendment, not the first.
This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general.
> to the point where the right to redress is abrogated?
Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
2 replies →