Comment by dahart

2 months ago

That’s great, but not what I asked about. Free speech protections in the US are based on laws and not natural rights.

Well that's not how it reads in historical documents to me. But you're free to have that opinion if you want to.

  • Which historical documents are you referring to? Are you talking about the Declaration of Independence, which doesn’t mention free speech, nor define what natural rights are, nor provide any protection from any governments when asserting natural rights?

    I’m talking about the First Amendment, which does mention free speech. That’s a law and not a natural right, which you already know since you quoted it above. Additional laws and court decisions have defined what the free speech protections are, and what types of speech are not protected by law.

    The important thing to know about free speech in the US is that because it’s a legal right, it comes with legal protections from the government itself.

    The important thing to know about natural rights is that they don’t come with any protection whatsoever, because they are not laws or legal rights. Asserting natural rights may come with consequences that include violence, imprisonment, or death. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence was asserting the natural right to start a war against oppressive government, specifically to justify breaking with British colonial rule. If there are no legal rights protecting you, the government is under no obligation to respect your perceived natural rights.

    • I'm glad you're taking time to learn about it. But all a state can do is either pass laws to protect natural rights, or they can pass laws to punish people with violence for exercising their natural rights.

      All laws are backed by violence. That's called law enforcement.

      1 reply →