Re:Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect User...
by Cryptid on Friday November 17, 2017 @11:52AM
(#15723619)
"Is the Second Amendment the Second Most Important?" - "The order of that list, however, still reflects Madison’s view: They come in the same order as the sections of the Constitution that they would have modified."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
Re:Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect User...
by tscs37 on Friday November 17, 2017 @03:12PM
(#15725599)
The first amendment only exists in the US and only started existing well after democracy was invented.
Re:Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect User...
by Danihan on Friday November 17, 2017 @06:02PM
(#15726714)
The colonists were from and used to monarchy.
Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.
"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."
Re:Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect User...
by tscs37 on Saturday November 18, 2017 @01:58AM
(#15728077)
In what way does this respond to my comment? I asserted that America's amendment does not exist in other legislations and that democracy has been far older than america. None of which are relevant in your comment.
Re:Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect User...
by ABCLAW on Friday November 17, 2017 @02:25PM
(#15725180)
The first amendment did not create democracy. It was enacted in one. That's the point being made.
Re:Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect User...
by Danihan on Friday November 17, 2017 @07:23PM
(#15727065)
The colonists were from and used to monarchy.
Democracy was nearly a foreign concept to them and it very gradually evolved in the US after the Bill of Rights passed.
"The Founding Fathers rejected 'democracy' as defined by the Greeks, preferring instead 'a natural aristocracy', whereby only the landed gentry were entitled to a place in Congress."
That seems like a pretty grand statement to make offhand and pretend like it's objective.
Free speech is in the very first amendment. #1. Yet you feel so comfortable hand-waving it away.
Freedom of Association implies just the opposite of your argument, that intolerence is specifically protected.