Freedom of speech is in retreat

Re:Freedom of speech is in retreat by bluejekyll on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @04:05PM (#11857366)

I must have misunderstood your initial point. I agree that the government (police is para-military) has the responsibility to prosecute everyone equally. If your point was that it could ignore prosecuting some in order to suppress freedom of speech, than I agree, that the government should in some way be required to prosecute all people fairly (though this is easier said than done I fear).

I guess for me it's the "active" defense of the First Amendment that concerns me, because depending on what that means it could easily be actively abused in exactly the ways that we're discussing through inactivity.

For this, I think other laws, assuming they're fairly applied, are sufficient and less open to interpretation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Freedom of speech is in retreat by talmand on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @04:34PM (#11857565)

This is more or less what I'm saying. I don't really see how the government can have a direct and active defense of the First Amendment as it applies only to the government. I'm just speaking of the other laws on the books that the government may choose to not enforce that will lead to a person unable to exercise free expression. I interpret that type of inaction by the government as a form of a First Amendment violation.

[ Parent | on HN ]