Bill of Rights (1689) - bigoted?

This honorable gentleman thinks so, and i'm am very much inclined to agree...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca_kI948JUA

for an extant piece of legislation something is very wrong, like the privilege of being able to defend oneself being exclusive to only one religious 'faith'...

also, anyone who is confronted with another making the assertion that there is no legal right to free speech in English law, refer them here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2

I'm kind of scratching my head trying to figure out your point. Are the principles in the bill of rights bigoted? No. Were some specific implementations of it bigoted? Yes.

The biggest problem I have with it is the lack of review and reform to keep it in line with with modern attitudes and other legislation!

The Law Commission is supposed to be dedicated to reviewing and reforming all legislation; the Bill of Rights is a significant foundation of our so-called 'unwritten' constitution, you'd think they'd have corrected that particular anomaly by now...

If it properly enshrines fundamental principles, it shouldn’t need to be reformed to stay in line with modern attitudes.

It’s one thing to expand fundamental rights to include groups that were previously excluded (e.g: women’s right to vote). That’s simply recognizing just how fundamental a right is, and the hypocrisy of espousing it for some and limiting it for others. It’s another thing to limit fundamental rights because “modern attitudes” don’t like it or find it convenient (e.g: limiting free speech because some find the content “offensive”). Lastly is the problem of rationalizing new “rights”, like the right to health care or basic income; which rely on removing or limiting the rights of others. At the extreme, citizens become slaves of the state, because their property and labor are no longer their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dneal

If it properly enshrines fundamental principles, it shouldn’t need to be reformed to stay in line with modern attitudes.

It’s one thing to expand fundamental rights to inc
lude groups that were previously excluded (e.g: women’s right to vote). That’s simply recognizing just how fundamental a right is, and the hypocrisy of espousing it for some and limiting it for others. It’s another thing to limit fundamental rights because “modern attitudes” don’t like it or find it convenient (e.g: limiting free speech because some find the content “offensive”). Lastly is the problem of rationalizing new “rights”, like the right to health care or basic income; which rely on removing or limiting the rights of others. At the extreme, citizens become slaves of the state, because their property and labor are no longer their own.

---

Agreed.
There are those in the US that would change the Constitution to suit their wants to the exclusion of others. They desire to be in control and change the articles of the Constitution every time they feel like it.

John

The Bill of Rights is not and was not meant to be a fixed or comprehensive statement of principles of governing nor of ethical conduct between the states and its citizens. And it is certainly not a sacred work. Like many powerful instruments, it has been used for both good and evil. I tend to believe that the arc of justice has been in the right direction: toward more inclusion and compassion, and a spreading of freedom down through the economic strata.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSherbs

The Bill of Rights is not and was not meant to be a fixed or comprehensive statement of principles of governing nor of ethical conduct between the states and its citizens. And it is certainly not a sacred work. Like many powerful instruments, it has been used for both good and evil. I tend to believe that the arc of justice has been in the right direction: toward more inclusion and compassion, and a spreading of freedom down through the economic strata.

---

So you agree, the act needs reform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSherbs

The Bill of Rights is not and was not meant to be a fixed or comprehensive statement of principles of governing nor of ethical conduct between the states and its citizens. And it is certainly not a sacred work. Like many powerful instruments, it has been used for both good and evil. I tend to believe that the arc of justice has been in the right direction: toward more inclusion and compassion, and a spreading of freedom down through the economic strata.

---

So you agree, the act needs reform?

---

Which "act"? I am not sure what you are referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIR

also, anyone who is confronted with another making the assertion that there is no legal right to free speech in English law, refer them here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2

---

Must confess that the print was too fine for me to read the entire text. Does the Freedom of Speech extend anywhere outside of Parliamentt?

This video oversimplifies a lot of stuff, and with the exception of his mention of only Protestants being allowed to bear arms, really whitewashes the whole issue of just how profoundly bigoted the Crown and the Roundhead-controlled Parliament were towards the Catholics. Bear in mind that England had been a Catholic country, and "converted" to Protestantism under extreme duress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kazoolaw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIR

also, anyone who is confronted with another making the assertion that there is no legal right to free speech in English law, refer them here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2

---

Must confess that the print was too fine for me to read the entire text. Does the Freedom of Speech extend anywhere outside of Parliamentt?

---

And what is freedom of speech, anyway? I work closely with many immigrants and residents who were born and raised in countries around the world. Few of them seem to understand free speech in the US in 1A terms and as clarified by subsequent case law (e.g. Brandenburg v. Ohio) . Take Charlottesville, for example. They seemed to think that somebody should have prevented the white supremacists from being able to assemble and protest in the first place, i.e. the government should have suppressed them. The idea that there should only be hyper-narrow and rarely-applicable prohibitions against abhorrent political speech just doesn't meet with their intuition, as it doesn't with too many Americans who lack adequate civics education. Consequently, when they claim that their countries of origin have the right to free speech, I tend to take it with a grain of salt. It is "free" by their reckoning, but it's hard to see how this

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...-west-43478925

could happen in the US. He would probably get booted off whatever private services he was using for violating their TOS, but prosecuted by the government for a hate crime? I don't see how such a prosecution would ultimately succeed in the US even if he had been serious.

Just got vetted by the system in order to have the freedom to have my say here. Bit ironic.

As a Brit who has never really spoken out in anger on any substantial issue, my view is that free speech can easily magnify the lack of a proper upbringing. There are overt social rules (laws and such) that one is s'posed to adhere to, but there are also unspoken social principles that people with a degree of commonsense should know how and when to apply. In an ideal world, natch.

An over the pond opine.

As you were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DumDum

Just got vetted by the system in order to have the freedom to have my say here. Bit ironic.

As a Brit who has never really spoken out in anger on any substantial issue, my view is that free speech can easily magnify the lack of a proper upbringing. There are overt social rules (laws and such) that one is s'posed to adhere to, but there are also unspoken social principles that people with a degree of commonsense should know how and when to apply. In an ideal world, natch.

An over the pond opine.

As you were.

---

I thought "opine" was a verb...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhosea

And what is freedom of speech, anyway? ....

---

A collection of words with an evolving meaning according to the historical, cultural, and rhetorical contexts. No where on the planet is this right absolute; it is limited, everywhere, to varying degrees. I live in the US, and at times I am proud of our freedom in this regard, and at other times I am quite dismayed with the collateral damage that it can cause. In my work I have serious restrictions on this "right," but the original law was not intended as a workplace protection. While we may speak more freely on the street corner on our lunch break, we are muzzled for the bulk of the day as employees. I tend not to idealize any of it.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DumDum

Just got vetted by the system in order to have the freedom to have my say here. Bit ironic.

As a Brit who has never really spoken out in anger on any substantial issue, my view is that free speech can easily magnify the lack of a proper upbringing. There are overt social rules (laws and such) that one is s'posed to adhere to, but there are also unspoken social principles that people with a degree of commonsense should know how and when to apply. In an ideal world, natch.

An over the pond opine.

As you were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by calamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DumDum

Just got vetted by the system in order to have the freedom to have my say here. Bit ironic.

As a Brit who has never really spoken out in anger on any substantial issue, my view is that free speech can easily magnify the lack of a proper upbringing. There are overt social rules (laws and such) that one is s'posed to adhere to, but there are also unspoken social principles that people with a degree of commonsense should know how and when to apply. In an ideal world, natch.

An over the pond opine.

As you were.

---

I thought "opine" was a verb...

---

I don't mind about the fact that "opine" may be a verb used as a noun in this context, but I'm pleased to see that DumDum has at least shown us here that he can speak eruditely using the phrases "my say" and "my view," rather than the dialect versions of "me pen" and "me hands" that he has frequently used in his other posts. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSherbs

I tend not to idealize any of it.

---

It's for the best. Few things of the real world survive the process of idealization. The concept of an "absolute right" that is itself nontrivial tends not to be consistent with a nontrivial system of rights. As soon as you set one up, you'll start having to navigate conflicts.

Anyway, Brandenburg v. Ohio is a reasonably practical guide to what limitations the US government (and any its agents) can actually impose. In a nutshell, we can't have a "hate speech" law.