I think there is something to be said for making a system where everything is allowed except that which is specifically excluded. Otherwise, when you run into a grey area...there's subjectivity. People yell about their rights a great deal, but what it really boils down to is what are you NOT allowed to do. For instance...I have "Freedom of Speech"....but I don't really...because laws have been passed limiting my freedom of speech. I can't make a sexist joke at the workplace. There is a law forbidding it. So, really, what does the "Freedom of Speech" give me. It gives me the freedom to speak, save where it is in violation of the law. If I wasn't given that right...I'd still have the freedom to speak, except where violated by law.
And we have a Supreme Court that can, has and will evaluate those laws to see if the impact of that law that prohibits your speech in that situation is acceptable in comparison to the fact that it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
If not for that, who would judge when such a law goes too far?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Ben's not here to answer that...
Date: 2003-05-05 04:42 pm (UTC)People yell about their rights a great deal, but what it really boils down to is what are you NOT allowed to do.
For instance...I have "Freedom of Speech"....but I don't really...because laws have been passed limiting my freedom of speech. I can't make a sexist joke at the workplace. There is a law forbidding it. So, really, what does the "Freedom of Speech" give me. It gives me the freedom to speak, save where it is in violation of the law. If I wasn't given that right...I'd still have the freedom to speak, except where violated by law.
Re: Ben's not here to answer that...
Date: 2003-05-05 04:50 pm (UTC)And we have a Supreme Court that can, has and will evaluate those laws to see if the impact of that law that prohibits your speech in that situation is acceptable in comparison to the fact that it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
If not for that, who would judge when such a law goes too far?