“The Constitution’s failure to protect free speech at a seemingly basic level points to a major defect in its design. While it may be praiseworthy in forcefully demanding that the government it authorizes respect the rights of its citizens, it has not provided the real structural support to ensure that those demands are met. Anyone seriously interested in protecting free speech must push for a very radical ‘constitutional amendment.’ We should work not just to change the words of the document we call ‘the Constitution,’ but instead amend our legal system by completely changing the way it’s constituted.”
Related posts:
$6 Billion Goes Missing at State Department
Supreme Court affirms Rumsfeld’s immunity from torture lawsuits
MIT Students Show the Enormously Intrusive Nature of Metadata
Graham says FBI should confront people who view ‘Islamist’ websites
Wall Street Analyst: Winners And Losers In The Rise Of Bitcoin
Pawn Shops Boom as Consumer Retail Banking Retreats
New Possibilities in Panama: Panama's New Visa Offering
Why Is the U.S. Funding International Drug Rehabs Known for Torture and Abuse?
Why Rising Rates Will Be Good for Your Investments
Why Bitcoin is a Better Way to do International Money Transfers
Venture Capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya on Bitcoin
Who voted for the Reed Amendment in 1995 and 1996?
Bitcoin vs. The Fed: Andreas Antonopoulos, Stefan Molyneux
Helpful Hackers vs. College Regulators
Hospital Opens First Inpatient Treatment Program For 'Internet Addiction'
