It’s just a paper that can be (re)interpreted to any extreme. The only rights you have are the ones you seize and protect yourself.
So in the UK they have "dedicated police officers who are scouring social media" for insulting or abusive material. Even retweeting is a potential offense. Thankfully in America we have the 1st amendment so we can tell wannabe bootlicking government officials and the thought police to get lost.
https://video.nostr.build/c10f9a293458dad3f69da9ad171236d72e0bcd88bb5aa974c16bf5caacf76b6f.mp4
Discussion
That's why we also have the 2nd amendment to protect the 1st.
We’ll see if people are willing to do that when they ban “assault weapons.” My guess is that people will mostly comply and promise to vote harder next time.
You don't seize them. Rights are already there.
There is an important distinction between thinking the paper protects versus protecting your rights yourself. The paper tells our servants to protect our rights for us. They have not only refused that duty, but have been on the attack.
That's why it's up to each of us to exercise and protect our rights.
Perhaps I used the wrong word. I’m basically saying the paper does nothing to protect rights. Even the Bill of Rights has federal judges who interpret them to the extreme of basically doing nothing.
Yes. They can decide interpret the words in ways that are askew from the original meaning, or flat out ignore it.
The "War on Drugs" (i.e. people) is a great example of such abuse of law.