in this context, it means without exception
> You don't really seem to understand how the government works.
ouch. that comes off as rude. hopefully you didn't intend that. :) but yeah, I actually have picked up a thing or two about how the US government works over the last 35+ years of life and education.
That doesn't actually mean anything. Let me assume you're a seasoned programmer and ask you to postulate a society-modeling system and then define the First Amendment in terms of that system. What does "absolute" mean in that context?
> ouch. that comes off as rude. hopefully you didn't intend that.
I intended it about as much as you intended to come off as ignorant. You made a large number of vacuous claims that demonstrated a lack of understanding. Political philosophy is not a widely-studied subject; most people do not actually recall the details I offered when thinking about political matters. That's why they listen to Obama and Romney promising to do Congress's job and think that these are good reasons to vote for them.
you: "That doesn't actually mean anything."
me: It does mean something.
> I intended it about as much as you intended to come off as ignorant. You made a large number of vacuous claims that demonstrated a lack of understanding.
This is extremely rude.
To others:
The above is becoming all too common on HN. And a big reason why I don't participate in the comment threads here much anymore. I almost feel sorry for some of you when you don't understand how rude you act. Almost, but not quite. I sometimes wish PG went through the site every once in a while and just banned anyone that made comments such as these. The level of discourse and friendliness of atmosphere would improve greatly. Is anyone with me on this?
Anyway, I'll be over in G+ where I can block or mute anyone the instant they behave out of line. (A great feature I'd love to see HN get as well.)
Okay, fair. "Without exception" is what a tyrant says. It is an assertion of whim over reality; instead of caring about consequences to real people, it hand-waves and declares fiat. It is, in short, completely antithetical to the entire point of the Constitution itself. I had assumed you were explaining it inside the context of reality, but apparently that's wrong.
So nevermind that I proposed a route through which you could explain what it means. I suppose all it means is schoolyard rules.
> And a big reason why I don't participate in the comment threads here much anymore.
You mean it's not because people seem to be participating on HN for no better reason than pandering to the lurkers? You're the second person in a week I've "discussed" things with only to see that they had no intention of engaging and were only reciting talking points for the voiceless masses.
> I almost feel sorry for some of you when you don't understand how rude you act.
The feeling is mutual. You've refused to actually back up any of your claims. Instead, your only recourse is character attacks that center around how you're being treated. I've offered you multiple opportunities to actually respond usefully. You've refused to. I've explained my viewpoint honestly; you've dismissed this as being rude. What possible respect do you expect me to have for you?
wow. i'm speechless.
also, me saying that I think you're being rude is not a character attack. If we were talking about economics and then I suddenly declared you probably like to rape babies, that would be a character attack.
anyway, I'm done following up to your comments. I think we're fundamentally out of alignment communication-wise. good luck!
What does "absolute" mean?
The Constitutional guarantees are probably absolute, depending on what your idea of it is. What they aren't is comprehensively understood. You don't really seem to understand how the government works. This is what happens.
A law is written. This is the first gate; someone has to actually care enough to put it down on paper. This law can have arbitrary text and mandate arbitrary terms. It needs to be agreed upon by a good 500 people who are at least nominally looking out for the best interests of the full 310-million-person population. In the specific case of the OP, the Minnesota Legislature is about 200 persons representing 5 million. That's the second gate; a court of mild scrutiny. Then it has to be plausible enough for the elected president or governor to agree to enact it and actually do it. That's the third gate. At this point, and only at this point, does something like this have the opportunity to happen. This is the point at which something like owning a machine gun becomes illegal, and the police are allowed to arrest people who do.
There are a couple routes into the next stage, but this is the easiest to understand. The state decides to press charges against the offender under the aforementioned law. The lawyers involved may wish to ask the judge about the constitutionality of the law. Groups like the EFF and the ACLU watch for opportunities like this to step in on behalf of the defendant or plaintiff precisely in order to point out the unconstitutionality of certain laws and bring to bear the not-inconsiderable weight of their legal experience to prove it to the judge, who must make the final call. And, in case the judge makes a poor judgement (corruption, ineptness, etc.), there is a hierarchy of appeals that ends at the SCOTUS. It is usually through this mechanism that something like yelling "fire" is made illegal: Justice Holmes used it as a metaphor to establish a precedent, a test by which future judges could determine whether or not this was a reasonable exception to the broad stroke of the First Amendment.
Democracy is a lot more than a list of ten short paragraphs. Each of those rights have to be justified and defended and their nuance spelled out clearly based on actual events that occur in reality. What does free speech mean if, let's pretend, we had people who could reliably and provably enact mind control through speech? Is executing a heinous criminal without last rites a cruel and unusual punishment if we were certain there existed a Hell to which they'd be tortured for eternity? If everyone could be reasonably expected to own and effectively use a sniper rifle, is it self-defense to murder someone who threatens to shoot you? Upholding one's rights isn't easy, and it's made especially uneasy by the minor detail that we occasionally have no idea what they actually are in some specific case.