In fairness they do that because the Constitution, and legal precedent surrounding it, is the cornerstone of all federal law, supersedes all state and local laws, and is pretty close to impossible to change in the current political climate. It’s pretty hard to change in more “normal” times!
You ask as Christian why they don’t kill and they will says “God said thou shall not kill”. When really the underlying argument is that it is morally wrong to do so … obviously this point can be fleshed out a lot but for non Christians is not about the book
You talk about how freedom of speech is an ideal that the world and we should strive for more of it and Americans will say “The first amendment says the govement can’t censor you. Say nothing about corporations” then all the other Americans are like “haha yea got him” and “perfect explaination. Omg people are so stupid”.
When in fact I don’t actually care what the constitution says I’m talking more philosophy than “religion” just because your foreign law says one thing doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion that differs from it and honestly that isn’t a reason for you to have that opinion either.
[Also in researching this comment I realised that freedom of speech is the first ammendment not in the orginal text. So I look a bit stupid, but whatever I can’t be expected to know the laws of every foreign country. The point still stands it seems like Americans treat the constitution as holy]
For sure, plenty see it as a static document. They’re known as “originalists” or “strict constructionists.” Many take that a step or two too far into quasi -religion.
FWIW, nobody says the Constitution applies anywhere outside the US. You bring up murder as an example and say the underlying reason is that it’s immoral to kill. So why do we have laws against killing people? I mean we all know it’s immoral to kill, so why do we need the laws? Because not everything that is immoral is illegal. Not everything that’s moral is legal, either. You’re treating two different things as if they were one and the same. Plenty of people will tell you that two dudes getting married is “immoral,” and even cite Bible passages. I feel like you and I would probably disagree with them. This is where law can step in and establish the boundary individuals have to respect regardless of their moral views. Morals are for individuals, laws are for societies because we don’t all always agree on what’s “right.”
I don’t speak of free speech as this all healing thing, and anyone who does is naive, at best. In fact there are certainly plenty of times where free speech has no place. I don’t have free speech at work, for example, and I understand why.
The point of the free speech thing is that Americans will say any view you have against the constitution is wrong because the constitution says something else. Americans online and in person absolutely act like the constitution controls the Internet.
In fairness they do that because the Constitution, and legal precedent surrounding it, is the cornerstone of all federal law, supersedes all state and local laws, and is pretty close to impossible to change in the current political climate. It’s pretty hard to change in more “normal” times!
It’s more than that.
You ask as Christian why they don’t kill and they will says “God said thou shall not kill”. When really the underlying argument is that it is morally wrong to do so … obviously this point can be fleshed out a lot but for non Christians is not about the book
You talk about how freedom of speech is an ideal that the world and we should strive for more of it and Americans will say “The first amendment says the govement can’t censor you. Say nothing about corporations” then all the other Americans are like “haha yea got him” and “perfect explaination. Omg people are so stupid”.
When in fact I don’t actually care what the constitution says I’m talking more philosophy than “religion” just because your foreign law says one thing doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion that differs from it and honestly that isn’t a reason for you to have that opinion either.
[Also in researching this comment I realised that freedom of speech is the first ammendment not in the orginal text. So I look a bit stupid, but whatever I can’t be expected to know the laws of every foreign country. The point still stands it seems like Americans treat the constitution as holy]
For sure, plenty see it as a static document. They’re known as “originalists” or “strict constructionists.” Many take that a step or two too far into quasi -religion.
FWIW, nobody says the Constitution applies anywhere outside the US. You bring up murder as an example and say the underlying reason is that it’s immoral to kill. So why do we have laws against killing people? I mean we all know it’s immoral to kill, so why do we need the laws? Because not everything that is immoral is illegal. Not everything that’s moral is legal, either. You’re treating two different things as if they were one and the same. Plenty of people will tell you that two dudes getting married is “immoral,” and even cite Bible passages. I feel like you and I would probably disagree with them. This is where law can step in and establish the boundary individuals have to respect regardless of their moral views. Morals are for individuals, laws are for societies because we don’t all always agree on what’s “right.”
I don’t speak of free speech as this all healing thing, and anyone who does is naive, at best. In fact there are certainly plenty of times where free speech has no place. I don’t have free speech at work, for example, and I understand why.
The point of the free speech thing is that Americans will say any view you have against the constitution is wrong because the constitution says something else. Americans online and in person absolutely act like the constitution controls the Internet.