Comment by ImPostingOnHN
20 days ago
> 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".
> This article is about the entire first amendment, not just FOIA or transparency in general.
yes, i read the whole thing. as a general strategy in a persuasive essay you shouldn't include an argument with such a weak association, much less lead with it, because it makes me question the author's judgement and devalues the arguments downpage. if i were less patient i would have quit after the FOIA part.
> Certainly to the point where it requires a higher standard than "the rest of us".
success requires a higher standard. but curtailing the right to redress (the right to initiate the complaining suit) is problematic: eventually someone will extend the curtailment to people with less power.
1 reply →