Americans, despite the mythology drilled into us since kindergarten, have no right to free speech. Period.
Where exactly in the following brief but complete text of the First Amendment are we Americans supposed to find our inexorable right to speak freely:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The only thing this glorified “right” does is to prevent the Congress of the United States from making a law that prohibits free speech. It doesn’t prevent you or me or any small business or, especially, any corporation from prohibiting free speech. In fact, it doesn’t stop the American judicial branch from prohibiting free speech (as it does with libel and slander laws or death threats). Nor does it stop the U.S. executive branch from making rules or policy that limit speech (as it routinely does for members of the military, federal employees, and government contractors).
The sad fact is if you live under the U.S. Constitution you have never had an absolute right to free speech, and you never will have that right, and to think otherwise is delusional.
You and I, or any business, and especially any corporation, can and often do prohibit free speech. You cannot walk into my house and say anything you want. You cannot walk into a business and say anything you want. In both instances you will be, at minimum, asked to leave, and that can be enforced by police (for trespassing, disturbing the peace, or some other law that does not generally apply directly to speech but which instead applies to maintaining order or property rights).
In America, property rights trump all other rights (except the right to own slaves which was specifically prohibited in the 13th Amendment, which wasn’t ratified until 1865).
I hope Galloway follows through on his threat to take legal action. Under British law he may actually be more likely to win than under U.S. law.
However, so long as Twitter remains a private company, it can and will restrict your speech. Even if we argue Twitter has become like the public square and we nationalize the company and bring it under the umbrella of the U.S. Constitution, that still won’t solve the problem: try to exercise your free speech rights in the public square without a permit and see what happens.
I wish we actually had free speech, but I refuse to suffer under the delusion that free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment. I think the best we can do is to search out places where free(r) speech is allowed. That’s why we are here on Substack (and other “parallel structures” that don’t rely on government protections). But how long will Substack remain free before it participates in the censorship mania? How long before we must self-exile from this platform and find another?
Frankly, if we want to hurt Twitter and convince it of the error of its ways, then BSD it. (Or at least BD it.) Or consider using creative coded language on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, then linking that to your Substack where you can explain using plain language and free(r) speech.
For now, that’s as good as you’ll get. And it’s likely to get much worse from here on.
When you do get my book in the mail, Jack, check out the chapter on the Constitution and how the amendments (that are the only good thing in the Con.) were put in by the so-called anti-Federalists who were FOR a federal gov't and against the centralized merchant-banker scam that took the power of money creation away from the states (and later gave it to the banks.)
I just studied Franklin’s address (which was previously unfamiliar to me) in Chapter 5. That speech was a sad capitulation to the titanic power struggle occurring beneath the surface of the Constitutional Convention—one in which even Franklin was cancelled. On the other hand, the speech was also a brilliant coded message to the future to be aware of the shortfalls of the Constitution (or, perhaps, any constitution) and to keep honing the paradigm. Thoroughly enjoying your book!
Thanks so much, Jack! Yes, isn't Franklin's speech at the end of the Constitutional Convention chilling? "...this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism..." And for him to accede to it and say, "The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die."
I can't help but wonder, if Franklin had not taken sick and been late to the Convention, enabling Washington the warmonger to replace him as chair, would the US have no permanent military, no gov't debt, and no slavery for the next 80 years? Would states have had the right to issue their own currency, providing a model for the rest of the world? The last 200 years of colonization might have gone a different direction.
They were going to have slavery regardless. The Southern states would not have come in without it. As for the issuance of currency, the states would be tempted to the same bad practices as the Federal government. I"d suggest currency created by ordinary people organized in credit unions. I have a plan.... But not for a comments section.
Americans, despite the mythology drilled into us since kindergarten, have no right to free speech. Period.
Where exactly in the following brief but complete text of the First Amendment are we Americans supposed to find our inexorable right to speak freely:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The only thing this glorified “right” does is to prevent the Congress of the United States from making a law that prohibits free speech. It doesn’t prevent you or me or any small business or, especially, any corporation from prohibiting free speech. In fact, it doesn’t stop the American judicial branch from prohibiting free speech (as it does with libel and slander laws or death threats). Nor does it stop the U.S. executive branch from making rules or policy that limit speech (as it routinely does for members of the military, federal employees, and government contractors).
The sad fact is if you live under the U.S. Constitution you have never had an absolute right to free speech, and you never will have that right, and to think otherwise is delusional.
You and I, or any business, and especially any corporation, can and often do prohibit free speech. You cannot walk into my house and say anything you want. You cannot walk into a business and say anything you want. In both instances you will be, at minimum, asked to leave, and that can be enforced by police (for trespassing, disturbing the peace, or some other law that does not generally apply directly to speech but which instead applies to maintaining order or property rights).
In America, property rights trump all other rights (except the right to own slaves which was specifically prohibited in the 13th Amendment, which wasn’t ratified until 1865).
I hope Galloway follows through on his threat to take legal action. Under British law he may actually be more likely to win than under U.S. law.
However, so long as Twitter remains a private company, it can and will restrict your speech. Even if we argue Twitter has become like the public square and we nationalize the company and bring it under the umbrella of the U.S. Constitution, that still won’t solve the problem: try to exercise your free speech rights in the public square without a permit and see what happens.
I wish we actually had free speech, but I refuse to suffer under the delusion that free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment. I think the best we can do is to search out places where free(r) speech is allowed. That’s why we are here on Substack (and other “parallel structures” that don’t rely on government protections). But how long will Substack remain free before it participates in the censorship mania? How long before we must self-exile from this platform and find another?
Frankly, if we want to hurt Twitter and convince it of the error of its ways, then BSD it. (Or at least BD it.) Or consider using creative coded language on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, then linking that to your Substack where you can explain using plain language and free(r) speech.
For now, that’s as good as you’ll get. And it’s likely to get much worse from here on.
When you do get my book in the mail, Jack, check out the chapter on the Constitution and how the amendments (that are the only good thing in the Con.) were put in by the so-called anti-Federalists who were FOR a federal gov't and against the centralized merchant-banker scam that took the power of money creation away from the states (and later gave it to the banks.)
I just studied Franklin’s address (which was previously unfamiliar to me) in Chapter 5. That speech was a sad capitulation to the titanic power struggle occurring beneath the surface of the Constitutional Convention—one in which even Franklin was cancelled. On the other hand, the speech was also a brilliant coded message to the future to be aware of the shortfalls of the Constitution (or, perhaps, any constitution) and to keep honing the paradigm. Thoroughly enjoying your book!
Thanks so much, Jack! Yes, isn't Franklin's speech at the end of the Constitutional Convention chilling? "...this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism..." And for him to accede to it and say, "The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die."
I can't help but wonder, if Franklin had not taken sick and been late to the Convention, enabling Washington the warmonger to replace him as chair, would the US have no permanent military, no gov't debt, and no slavery for the next 80 years? Would states have had the right to issue their own currency, providing a model for the rest of the world? The last 200 years of colonization might have gone a different direction.
They were going to have slavery regardless. The Southern states would not have come in without it. As for the issuance of currency, the states would be tempted to the same bad practices as the Federal government. I"d suggest currency created by ordinary people organized in credit unions. I have a plan.... But not for a comments section.
Actually, with regard to free speech, property rights are not necessarily absolute. It's contested legal and political terrain.