Comment by bofadeez
2 months ago
"Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What part of that are you confused by? You are making a brash claim that the writ of the state includes the ability to censor speech.
Your right to free speech is not granted by anyone. It's your natural right. It's not possible to separate this right from a human with a law.
That a significant proportion of advertising involves deceit, coercion, and captive audiences says a great deal about the nature of it. The First Amendment codifies the right to say what you want, to print or otherwise make public your thoughts. That doesn't give anyone, or anything, a right to force their ideas into the minds of the public or a subset thereof. And while advertisers are not quite yet forcing anyone to consume their product at the proverbial "barrel of a gun" they are far beyond the norms of human communication.
It is not acceptable for a stranger to come up and start shouting at you while you're trying to read, or hold a conversation, do your shopping, or put gas in your car. So why is it somehow acceptable for advertisers to do so? Would you want to pay for a course of instruction, some unknown percentage of which was not instruction, but was actually conducted at the direction of unknown others, who, with no regard or concern for your life, liberty, well-being or happiness were trying to extract wealth from you? Yet that is exactly what happens with much of our media-mediated experience of the world.
I think the underlying changes in the technology of communication have allowed advertising to grow without sufficient thought on whether such expansion was actually a public good. Like license plates - the impact of which changed radically when the government could, thanks to advances in technology, use them to monitor the position of virtually all vehicles over time, instead of being forced to physically look up who owned what vehicle - the explosion of media over the last century has been accompanied by an immense shift in the impact and capability and intrusiveness of advertising. And it's legality needs to be reassessed in that light.
Free speech has exceptions that include commercial speech and advertising, especially false advertising. So are you talking about US free speech laws, or about some other kind of free speech?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
US law is not a natural right and does not grant the right to say anything. You can claim and exercise a perceived natural right to say anything, you just won’t be protected from punishment under US law for saying certain things.
A law cannot remove a natural right. A law can protect a natural right or oppress people by using violence against them if they exercise their natural right.
One stark example is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in the United States. This law required that escaped slaves, even if they reached free states, be captured and returned to their owners. It went further by mandating that citizens and law enforcement in free states assist in this process, effectively making it illegal to help runaway slaves. Penalties for non-compliance were harsh—fines and imprisonment loomed over anyone who aided a fugitive.
By today’s standards, this is widely seen as abhorrent because it not only upheld slavery but forced people to actively participate in it, stripping away any moral or legal refuge for those seeking freedom. It’s a glaring relic of a time when human beings were legally treated as property, clashing hard with modern values of liberty and equality.
That’s great, but not what I asked about. Free speech protections in the US are based on laws and not natural rights.
4 replies →
There are already established legal limits on speech.
Again, try screaming racial slurs on daytime television. You will be met with a fine and/or imprisonment.
I am not a lawyer. I am not a member of congress. I did not write the law. I don't particularly like or agree with those laws. But they exist, and unless I'm mistaken it seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge their existence.
That's not what is being discussed though. You missed the point.
>It's your natural right. It's not possible to separate this right from a human with a law.
I get the impression that this "natural right" term is intended to preclude inquiry and shut down discussion.
Right. Just as it's not possible to discuss reinstitution of slavery. It's not open for dicussion.
What do you have to say to the 40-year-old man who says he has a natural right to have sex with 10-year-olds and for the state to punish him for it is just as wrong as state support for slavery was?
It seems that the only effect this "natural right" term has on sufficiently curious interlocutors (who will not fall for your rhetorical trick) is to signal that you are more stubborn than people who do not use the term.
1 reply →