Our most sacred right

[OtherCheek]

I am a believer that America's Founders were inspired when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and they were inspired and aided in their efforts to establish a government and nation where no one was above the law. Granted, we have now in many ways departed from that original form of government they established.

That being said, what do you see, as the most sacred right that a free people have (or should have) as expressed by the Constitution?

What is the last bulwark of political and civic freedom as you see it?

[NeilUnreal]

Freedom of speech. Nothing else even comes close in my mind. I approach being an absolutist in this regard.

-Neil

[OtherCheek]

Freedom of speech. Nothing else even comes close in my mind. I approach being an absolutist in this regard.

-Neil

From Amendment I

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.

Freedom of Religion (No State-established Religion)
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Assemblage
Redress of grievances

From Amendment 1, you chose Freedom of Speech. I think that's a good choice, and I can't argue with it. But can you explain why you don't put "Freedom of Religion" first?

Do you think a case can be made that all our other rights in some way depend upon the preservation of "Freedom of Speech"?

[NeilUnreal]

Do you think a case can be made that all our other rights in some way depend upon the preservation of "Freedom of Speech"?

Yes, that is indeed the case. Any wrong, I am convinced, can eventually be corrected if the people are free to speak out against it. And all other rights, including those of religion and equality, can win if the people are free to speak out in favor of them.

Nothing else can guarantee these things to the extent that free speech can -- not the right to vote, not the right to bear arms, not equality under the law.

So, while a lot of rights are important to a free, just, and equitable society, freedom of speech is the cornerstone and guarantor of all the rest.

-Neil

[OtherCheek]

Yes, that is indeed the case. Any wrong, I am convinced, can eventually be corrected if the people are free to speak out against it. And all other rights, including those of religion and equality, can win if the people are free to speak out in favor of them.

Nothing else can guarantee these things to the extent that free speech can -- not the right to vote, not the right to bear arms, not equality under the law.

So, while a lot of rights are important to a free, just, and equitable society, freedom of speech is the cornerstone and guarantor of all the rest.

-Neil

I don't disagree with you. But I would add something to consider as well. John Adams stated )and I paraphrase), that the Constitution was written for a religious and moral people, and that it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other.

As I see it, when the majority of the people choose wrong, and use their freedom of speech to proliferate wrong ideas (morally as well as politically), then either we fall into those popular types of governments, or it is up to religion and faiths to change the minds and hearts of the people so they will again use their freedoms in a morally responsible way.

[NeilUnreal]

I don't see freedom of speech as a guarantee of perfection, moral, civil, or otherwise. I think freedom of speech is a guarantor of the right to seek that perfection.

Any freedom that a population can use to seek the good, be it freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc., can also be used to seek the bad. In fact, a freedom only has the power to help achieve good to the same extent that it has power to help achieve the bad. Otherwise, it would be a restriction and not a freedom.

In many areas, we place safeguards on the exercise of rights. For example, we have legal guarantees of civil rights and equal protection. These prevent, among other things, a tyranny of the majority. But speech is different; one has the right to ignore it and the ability to present an opposing viewpoint. The danger of limiting speech seems a far greater danger than any good that may come from restricting speech, so I think we should come down in favor or freedom.

So I think the freedom of speech is very nearly an absolute right. I would, of course, except clear cases of libel, slander, and copyright violation, which should be open to civil action. Also, things such as child pornography and intrusive publication of private matters deserve banning, since they have clear, specific victims. These things do violate civil rights, privacy rights, and equal protection to an extent that nearly all of us can agree the restrictions on such speech are appropriate.

But as these exceptions show, the key, as you indicate, is to have the proper moral underpinnings in the population which is allowed the freedom. And this, I think, requires education, public discourse, and religion – all of which are guaranteed by free speech.

-Neil

[Vivian]

I think freedom of speech is a guarantor of the right to seek that perfection.

Any freedom that a population can use to seek the good, be it freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc., can also be used to seek the bad. In fact, a freedom only has the power to help achieve good to the same extent that it has power to help achieve the bad. Otherwise, it would be a restriction and not a freedom.


-Neil

I agree with you here, Neil.

I hold these words from the Declaration of Independence...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


To be similar in function to these of Jesus...

‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

All of the laws and functioning of government hang on these inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So I conclude that our most sacred right, the right that all laws defend, is our liberty, our freedom, to seek happiness.

And so the right of free speech is given with this goal, this basic freedom in mind.

In my spiritual journey, I have come to greatly honor this freedom to seek happiness according to our own conscience - as long as we do not interfere with the seeking of others, which for me is tantamount to freedom to seek God as we choose. And so as a patriot and a follower of Christ, I, in principle, stand against any limitations to this freedom - including any fundamental or orthodox declarations that we must seek God this way and only this way.

Often I find that it is religion itself which seeks to take away our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, or our inalienable right to seek happiness any way we choose [again as long as we do not interfere with the seeking of others]!


Shalom.

Viv

[NeilUnreal]

All of the laws and functioning of government hang on these inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So I conclude that our most sacred right, the right that all laws defend, is our liberty, our freedom, to seek happiness.

I think, in light of the original post, your response is actually more correct than mine. These basic rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are indeed the most most precious of the rights mentioned in our founding documents.

Freedom of speech, I think, is perhaps the most important specific operational right guaranteed by the Constitution. These other rights (equality, liberty, etc.), are described as innate and absolute. In that sense they are not so much rights guaranteed by the founding documents as they are the fundamental axioms of humanity on which the other guarantees are built, guarantees which seek to secure these inalienable rights against usurpers.

I think I picked freedom of speech because I was thinking in terms of these specific operational freedoms and rights by which we govern ourselves. If liberty (etc.) are the basic axioms, freedom of speech is the most important operator for constructing the theorems we call laws and conventions.

-Neil

[Vivian]

I think, in light of the original post, your response is actually more correct than mine. These basic rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are indeed the most most precious of the rights mentioned in our founding documents.

Freedom of speech, I think, is perhaps the most important specific operational right guaranteed by the Constitution. These other rights (equality, liberty, etc.), are described as innate and absolute. In that sense they are not so much rights guaranteed by the founding documents as they are the fundamental axioms of humanity on which the other guarantees are built, guarantees which seek to secure these inalienable rights against usurpers.

I think I picked freedom of speech because I was thinking in terms of these specific operational freedoms and rights by which we govern ourselves. If liberty (etc.) are the basic axioms, freedom of speech is the most important operator for constructing the theorems we call laws and conventions.

-Neil

I agree, Neil, that freedom of speech is of the utmost importance, for it embraces also freedom of thought and expression. This very issue was recently addressed at my daughter's school.

She is a 6th grader at a Christian school and one boy in her class one day began singing a song that some parents thought very inappropriate.

The words sung by a boy were rather innocent - I kissed a girl, you should try it sometime. The problem is the song was made popular by a female, with lesbian undertones, and he knew it and shared that with everyone as he sang the song.

Some parents wanted him expelled, which I thought way too extreme, going against not only our Constitutional rights, but also the Spirit of scripture.

What I taught my daughter, I feel, is the intent of the founding fathers, the same that Paul expressed in his epistles.

I told my daughter there was nothing wrong with the boy singing the song. Also that there was nothing inherently wrong with the song. However, even though all things are permissible, all things are not beneficial, and it certainly is not beneficial to sing a song that makes others feel bad.

They are not wrong or right for feeling bad, and we would not be wrong or right for singing the song, but we are called to a higher law.

The law of love supersedes the idea of one person or idea/action being right and the other wrong - if our actions interfere with another's happiness, how can we be happy?

Imo, this is what the laws and the prophets hang on, as well as the laws of our land.


Shalom.

Viv

[OtherCheek]

I think, in light of the original post, your response is actually more correct than mine. These basic rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are indeed the most most precious of the rights mentioned in our founding documents.

Freedom of speech, I think, is perhaps the most important specific operational right guaranteed by the Constitution. These other rights (equality, liberty, etc.), are described as innate and absolute. In that sense they are not so much rights guaranteed by the founding documents as they are the fundamental axioms of humanity on which the other guarantees are built, guarantees which seek to secure these inalienable rights against usurpers.

I think I picked freedom of speech because I was thinking in terms of these specific operational freedoms and rights by which we govern ourselves. If liberty (etc.) are the basic axioms, freedom of speech is the most important operator for constructing the theorems we call laws and conventions.

-Neil

Good points all. I can't really disagree. Just a few clarifications of my own. The unalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence, (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness happen to be name, but there are others) are actually NATURAL Rights and are not established by the Constitution (which I think we all agree) but they are protected by it.

Perhaps freedom of religion and freedom of speech, cannot exist independent of each other. They must be be protected together, or they are lost together.

[Darth Executor]

Life. The rest are worthless if you're dead.

[OtherCheek]

Life. The rest are worthless if you're dead.

Do you even put the right to life above the right to affordable health care or the right to be a home owner, or the right to federally funded abortion?

You must be a heartless conservative.

[joel]

My answer is
"No person shall..be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" (Amendment 5)
and
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Amendment 14)

Obviously life is fundamental, in the sense that no other right is possible if you are dead.

But besides that, fundamental is liberty/property, or basically economic freedom. Without economic freedom, all other rights are worthless. You think freedom of speech is most basic? If the government has the authority to (say) reassign you to a job in Siberia, where you can "speak" all you want, the fact that the government allows you freedom of speech is worthless. Likewise freedom of the press is irrelevant if the government owns all the presses.

[laffer]

Do you even put the right to life above the right to affordable health care or the right to be a home owner, or the right to federally funded abortion?

You must be a heartless conservative.

What good is life if you're a disabled person living on the street

[Darth Executor]

What good is life if you're a disabled person living on the street

It isn't. Slaughter them like pigs.