Something I’ve been wondering about quite a bit…
As America’s cultural fabric decays and fractures to what extent is free speech fragile without shared cultural norms?
Basically can laws compensate for weak culture?
Or is free speech only tolerable to a majority of people when there’s a shared set of values?
I’m not sure, but I know free speech is our most important ideal and we must protect it with all our resolve.
Free speech transcends cultures. Same goes for taste. If you don’t have good taste, god help ya 🤞🏼🫂
Culture is upstream of law. Expect turbulence ahead. Balkanization might be the way forward
Unfortunately many people try to use the law to change culture
Generally not a good idea. Very fiat
Been thinking similar. Laws are only as good as their consequences and enforcement. Lately I’ve seen a lot of news pundits outraged at actions‘breaking the law’ but is it law if no one pays attention to it or is held accountable?
I feel that accountability is what we’re losing. And that’s a very slippery downhill slope. My 2¢
I think free speech only works with shared values. I think the issue we have now is marxists exploit our laws and values with no consequences. I think free speech only works when people are willing to have arguments is good faith and not when one group things lying and killing is good if it gets for what you want. The only thing good from the civil rights act was saying you can discriminate against communists still.
That all said I think the solution is people not the government making laws.
I don't know the answer to that question, but being born in a communist dictatorship, I know how it is without free speech, and the long-term effects. It's like an illness that never seems to heal even after decades.
These decades teach us that the only way free speech can be tolerable is with strong ostracism balancing it.
- If someone shouts jokinly "Fire" in a movie theatre, there should be some kind of public "correction";
- Maybe it's me, but I don't see these suggestion boxes the way they were in the past. Digitally, I just don't believe they would maintain my anonimity;
- If someone is nasty on internet, that should not have a centralized censor. People on that discussion should ostracize the offender, without being afraid of "getting caught". Hurray NOSTR!!!
...
Common know as "be the change you want to see in the world"
We are building something amazing here on Nostr base on free speech
The most basic rights and freedoms our forefathers designed this country around don’t work when you import the entire world. The majority of the world cannot operate with this much freedom without destroying everything
Sadly, I think it might be the latter. Thank god we have cryptography.
Like nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgpr9mhxue69uhhxetwv35hgtnwdaekvmrpwfjjucm0d5q3samnwvaz7tmswfjk66t4d5h8qunfd4skctnwv46qu7vtcc says the constitution is a shitcoin. Not because it’s not great, but because it doesn’t have the same enforcement mechanisms we can have in code.
the paper constitution got us to the point where we could instantiate it in code. The First Amendment can now be re-written as follows:
"Speech is ever a protocol, never a platform.”
It didn't. Within a few years it was being broken. You can read the writings of Lysnader Spooner to see this.
What has held us so far is the people and their pressure or lack of it. The First Amendment was ignored by Lincoln and others during times of war.
Its great to have it written down but it is powerless without people. And people have failed over and over again.
I like this way of framing it
The original enforcement mechanism was a very firm moral and religious code. That’s gone now, and the constitution immeasurably weaker as a result.
John Adams:
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The analysis the First District Court of Appeal did in finding open carry unconstitutional here in Florida actually provides a very reasoned way into healing the force of the US Constitution per the analysis it relied heavily on in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
For example:
Under Bruen’s historical test, the government must prove that
the challenged “regulation is part of the historical tradition that
delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Id.
at 19. That requires identifying a “well-established and
representative historical analogue” from either the Founding or
Reconstruction era that is relevantly similar in both how and why
it burdens the Second Amendment right. Id. at 29, 30 (emphasis
omitted). While a historical law need not be a “historical twin,” it
must impose a “comparable burden” and be “comparably justified,”
to serve as a historical analogue. Id. at 30.
This test could be readily applied to the other amendments reifying their original purposes. I'm actually bullish on this as a lawyerly nerd.
Code enforcement only matters if people use it
The civil rights movement effectively destroyed the constitution. That's what we are ruled by now. "The Age of entitlement" by Chris Caldwell is a very good read on this.
The unfortunate and sad reality is that constitutionally limited government is an abysmal failure.
When the government being limited by constitutional law is also the entity that determines the meaning of the limits and how the limits are enforced then the government will actively erode the original intentions in favor of itself.
Even the founders were aware of the risk of erosion and expected the peace to be much shorter lived than it has.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' - Thomas Jefferson
“The people” are supposed to be the enforcement mechanism. Constitution gives people the power with feee speech’s and weapons and in turn “the people” are supposed to defend it. It’s a positive feedback loop. Someone’s not doing their part.
Apologies for my pet peeve but free speech is an unalienable right and is not bestowed by the constitution. The constitution describes the powers granted to government by the people
Code as “enforcement” is a tool which is only effective when wielded correctly.
Reference Core’s misstep and unintended consequences from their ineffective “enforcement” via code diktats.
One of the most harmful lies in the United States has been poor Christian theology and the exploitation of the verse saying give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and the whole part about God choosing our leaders.
While the statement is true, our faith leaders have let us down by not properly defining Caesar in the United States…We The People are Caesar, our government officials are public Servants and they have convinced millions that it is the other way around. God does choose our leaders in the sense that he allows us to choose the leaders that we deserve and our poor effort as a people to maintain our power has seen us with plenty of terrible politicians.
The constitution is only a shitcoin if we the people are a shitcoin.
A few individuals can change it
Shitcoins have enforcement mechanisms in code too 🤷♂️
That’s true. Code itself is not enough. Bitcoin is beyond just its code.
It’s an addendum to the operating agreement the current ruling class has in place
The constitution is ultimately enforced by people and institutions, which makes it vulnerable to interpretation and manipulation. Code, on the other hand, removes trust from the equation and enforces rules automatically..... but it also lacks the flexibility that human judgment sometimes requires. Both have strengths and weaknesses depending on the context.
If you pattern match the people who pushed the ball forward on free speech have met the same final boss
(Jordan Peterson, corrupted by Israel. Charlie, possibly coerced and/or killed by Israel)
So the question becomes who continues to be willing to stand in the face of that threat or resist the temptations of buyouts. My thought is we actually only need a small resistant minority who continue to be willing to speak truthfully and a platform that enables that.
I think we will be just fine. The final boss isn’t as insurmountable as it seems.
The cultural decay isn’t as bad as it seems IMO. But maybe it’s because I spend a lot time with young people in SEC territory lol
I always thought free speech was our most widely shared value. What I sensed during Covid was widely shared support for censorship. It feels like we’ve taken a step or two back from the edge, but you’re right, we can’t be vigilant enough.
Free speech dies twice: first in culture, then in law.We really need both laws to guarantee it, and cultural commitment to make it flourish.
Right now, I do not think laws can compensate. Just as mercenaries have always been a sign of weakness in an empire and that you cannot force one to love another. Maybe that’s why laws relating to speech are necessarily broad, free with the exception of direct cause of physical harm - a high bar of proof, and anything else is simply not free by definition. It allows cultural flexibility under the covers and differences of opinion.
My freedom ends where another’s begin and that’s a gray area. I always use the “yelling FIRE in a theater” analogy. You’re free to yell in a theater but there are social consequences, especially to what you yell based on everyone else in the theater’s expectation of their freedom to enjoy a movie in relative peace free of nuisance, panic, riot or mortal danger.
Laws CAN compensate when they are actually upheld, the problem is our legal system has been infiltrated from every direction and laws not upheld. We are seeing the consequences of infiltrated judges, DAs and government leadership allowing existing laws to be ignored.
Big dog asking the real questions here.
Worth reflecting upon!
I wonder aswell⚡️
nostr:nevent1qqs0zqmtq69tz54mqzyl5kgze0s7v50fp4tp29x3dldfa6cj43kek0qdau5dp
I believe that we as a society must adhere to the founding father's and the US Constitution. Government can't legislate for weak culture that exists in certain segments of our society right now who don't believe in free speech or other rights except for themselves not all Americans. If there are no values in certain segments of society like we're experiencing now sadly then we can't fix that it comes down to things like belief in #God #Family #Patriotism and #Freedom with things like #Bitcoin and #Nostr
The USA empire will collapse by 2028. The parasite will leave its host behind and infect the new host China. Karma will be swift and just.
I believe Culture trumps Laws.
To me it seems that laws change as culture changes, not the other way around.
General laws to protect freedom of speech are necessary. Our values as a society to engage in debate and discourse and understand differences will determine whether or not we actually have it.
I think the Buddhist principle of Right Speech is a good lens to view how it could work. Coming from a place of compassion and seeking to understand, as opposed to our current mindset that all debates need to have a winner and a loser.
The USA is the shining light on the hill. The reptilian overlords must squash it. The world will undergo global social catalysym and every country will soon look like Nepal. All countries and currencies will fold and the one world government will be established. The end.
Free speech only works when you have basic parameters that a society respects. Thats impossible in a society with niggers and trannies everywhere.
I would posit that our legal protection of Free speech is primarily needed because we don’t have an overwhelming societal majority of shared values. If such a state existed there would likely be little disagreement and legal challenge to non existent dissent. I have been deeply dismayed at the consistent hypocrisy displayed by the tail distributions of the Left and Right when they feel the others “free speech” has crossed a line, despite it not actually being an incitement of violence or literal threat. I don’t condone vile and disgusting celebration of death, of any person, especially when they were targeted simply for exercising their rights to speak freely. However, targeting people with retribution for exercising their free speech related to their opinions of Charlie Kirks death is just as hypocritical as the lefts cancel culture in the wake of Floyd’s death or weaponization of twitter to cancel people prior to Musk.
Culture + Law.
If there's no culture to back up the law, the enforcement will erode/decay. Like Chesterton's fence, if the culture doesn't understand why the law is there, they will be quick to tear it down.
The First Amendment may protect expression, but it cannot shield this country or its people from the consequences of its words.
When hate is allowed to flourish under the banner of liberty, chaos will thrive and order will collapse.
Scripture warns:
“Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit.”
— Proverbs 18:21 (CSB)
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption,
but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
— Galatians 6:7–8 (ESV)
Trigger warning:
TL;DR and big words
The right to free speech is Natural Law, not an ideal or a political rule. It can only be infringed upon, not instated.
The Constitution gave no rights to Americans, as all humans automatically have those rights, from their Creator. All it does is enumerate and describe them. Different rights take precedence, when two rights conflict.
It's one of the laws that St. Paul describes as being written on our hearts, along with freedom of association, freedom of life, freedom of property, etc.
Everyone out of political power, or aggrieved, desires free speech. Anyone in power, or who imagines themselves so, will be tempted to curb the speech of others, to maintain power. The more power slips from their hand, or precarious their power is, the harsher the curbs. The more powerful the underdogs become, the louder they will demand their rights.
You can see this effect even here, on Nostr. This is simply humans humaning, rather than some political aspect. That is why Strom said that you can tell who is in power, by whom you are not allowed to criticize.
Strom's own oft-misquoted quote (usually attributed to Voltaire because of its' pithy brilliance) is an inverse-example of his statement, as people tend to recant it, after finding out who said it. He is considered so repugnant a person, that you cannot even accidentally or intentionally quote him, without it turning into an international incident. Neither conservatives, nor liberals, are willing to protect his speech. His words on free speech are considered unspeakable and repeating them will get you punished.
This woman knows 🔥❤
Charlie Kirk got shot and now half the right wants to cancel free speech and the right to bear arms. Where are peoples principals? its infuriating.
Laws are unnecessary for free speech. Inherently we have it. The law makers cannot take it away from you. What they can do is take you away for speaking, or writing. This is happening now and has always happened. Those that seek control, use force (laws) to obtain it. I believe Biden said that you'd better have F16 not just guns if you want to overthrow the government. (With regards to your 2nd amendment)
In reality 99.99% of humans have all the "laws" in built to there very fibre. Natural laws. Any other laws are man made. Usually to extort money from individuals.
Riddle me this, is free speech still allowed to insult someone that’s been assassinated or does it then go too far? Sure it may be in poor taste but it is still considered free speech. Free speech for all or free speech for none.
Sure you can insult an assassinated person, or even threaten others. But free speech does not mean free from social consequences.
Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
I usually use this to talk about workplaces, but I think it applies to general human behavior.
The constitution is a document that described the cultural values of America in that time.
I fear the cultural shift has been the water warming for the frog, and we’re just now realizing the depths to which we’ve fallen. We don’t have that culture today, so the constitution is a husk of a civilization that once existed.
we need to agree on a constitution in our family first
principles and values
and sign it
with blood
blood pact ✍🏼
I want badly to nod in agreement, but I can't help but hear so many of these meandering thoughts as cries for certainty. Nothing is certain, and in the face of that apparently people seek control as comfort. Do you best and deal with the shit as it comes.
agree on a constitution
new social contract
What would this new social contract have in it?
you don't agree, you're free to leave.
but don't ask for protection.
freedom of movement
Protection? Protection from violence?
protect and secure human rights
We have one of those that is relatively good looking back over history.
Agreed . Human behavior is the unknown factor. No matter how perfect a plan is structured, perception and perspective from a human point of view is what drives the strategy to a different outcome.
AI rely on patterned behavior . Humanity is notorious for unpredictability . Humanity break ideas. Create alternatives . Because we have different realities. Different priorities . And different expectations .
Governments have lost control of free speech. Their fake media has lost credibility . So what do they do? They make more laws? What do developers do? They create alternative solutions . NOSTR!!!
Governments have lost control of the money system . More laws. More alternative solutions. BITCOIN!!!
Perhaps we need to look at who the frogs are now.
I'm not a frog.
Free speech is a panacea for fragile, decaying cultures that inoculates against extinction.
We should avoid confusing the cart for the horse. 🐴
Bitcoin is a very high-risk investment because it's a volatile asset. That means that Bitcoin values may rise or fall dramatically in value over a very short period_ even as quickly as a few hours or days. Like all cryptocurrencies and a good mentor will guide you through this though period to make even with the current drop in cryptocurrencies,I started investing in stocks and cryptocurrencies with $1,000 Lol jobless claims up all the right things that show higher rates are doing the job and the market goes up inflation with the best way to find the balance between saving.
Text&Wassup +44/7446066295
telegram link trading ~view
@financeCryptoGlobalExchange
Of course BTC is volatile. Government interference, chokepoints, confiscation, and straight out theft causes that. At least we can see what is happening , because of transparent transactions .
Look at fiat. That too is volatile. The difference is - every Central Bank has a money printer. Short term relief and long term pain. Inflation and debasement. Croneyism and the Bank Secrecy Act.
One is based on solid ground. The other is based on swampy ground.
It's gona far enough, had a belly full of these people now. Separate us, we can live as we please and likewise for them. We all know how long they'll last. Let Darwinism play out. bitcoin for we, cbdc for thee
Great question. IMO, no, laws cannot serve that function, because people aren’t perfect & they will act in their own interest unless they’re guided by some morality higher than themselves. 1A is extremely unique & fragile, throughout time & space. My guess is so long as parents, teachers, politicians & figureheads aren’t focused on preserving it, it dies. Parents mentioned first for a reason.
*Why is Americas society so decayed and fractured?*
As a non-American who has visited the US multiple times one thing stands out like dog balls - especially when you consider that the US is a *modern, democratic, Western society*.
Americans are far too comfortable living in and around abject poverty. Multi-million dollar properties a few feet away from homeless encampments is a fucking disgrace.
I asked my friends and family in the US how they became so comfortable with it.
They said they don’t really see it or have to deal with it. I asked how that was possible?
They said we drive everywhere! Drive to work, drive to the gym, drive to Erewhon and valet the car!
Abject poverty out of sight out of mind.
Then it clicked…
Because of Americas unique car ownership culture and infrastructure built around the personal motor vehicle, Americans are completely blind to the abject squalor that resides in most corners of their country.
If you don’t actually have to walk amongst it (like a tourist) and you can just drive past the squalor in every city in the US you don’t really have to acknowledge it. You drive past it shielded by a thin layer of steel and glass.
A country that treats their poor and homeless with such disdain that are happy to have poverty front and centre in their home cities and towns has far bigger fish to fry to than ‘free speech’.
Zoom out even more and the cause is broken money and misaligned incentives (this is 101 shit for Bitcoiners).
Address the rampant poverty, close the wealth gap, look after the homeless.
Free speech will get a lot easier when everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
Keep fighting the good fight nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqyv8wumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsse5935 🇺🇸
#USA #Poverty #FreeSpeech
Scary to think about, seems like a winner writes the history books type of outcome. If the red team wins you can say this, and if the blue team wins you can say that.
Thought about this for a whole day nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgs2ys7q . Hang tight with me for a moment while I flush this out.
Free speech isn’t a standalone right floating in a cultural vacuum, it’s part of a moral ecosystem.
When transcendent moral law governs both conscience and civil authority, free speech serves truth seeking and genuine discourse. But when that foundation erodes, speech becomes mere power projection. Whoever screams loudest wins.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth. All law is inherently moral law. There’s no such thing as morally neutral governance. The question isn’t whether we’ll have a moral framework, but which one.
Free speech thrives when people share enough common ground to believe truth exists and is worth pursuing together. Strip away that shared foundation, and “free speech” becomes just another weapon in the culture war.
The founders knew that self governance requires a moral people. No system of laws, however clever, can substitute for the internal constraints of conscience formed by transcendent truth.
We can have ordered liberty under higher law, or we can have chaos under the arbitrary rule of men. There is no third option.
nostr:nevent1qqs0zqmtq69tz54mqzyl5kgze0s7v50fp4tp29x3dldfa6cj43kek0qdau5dp
Aquinas argued we cannot legislate morality.
I agree with him.
Ultimately, we build our families and associate with those whose morals align.
I think nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzenhwden5te0ve5kcar9wghxummnw3ezuamfdejj7mnsw43rzun5d3ckxcfcwgmxzatev9mn2m34dqekcdf5xgexgmf5wde8jdty0fnx2ef5xcunven3v5u8xdn3va6kg6mnxajx5arxwvlkyun0v9jxxctnws7hgun4v5dpfm4n is touching on an important idea I’ve considered before: Culture precedes laws. Or at least, that’s how it ought to be.
Laws should reflect what a culture already accepts as right and true. The written laws of a state matter much less than the cultural fabric of its people.
If mass immigration occurs, and the newcomers don’t share the same cultural values, those laws will inevitably be disregarded because they were never rooted in the newcomers’ sense of right and wrong in the first place.
This is also why many of us no longer respect the political process. Too often, politicians pass laws that clash with cultural norms and beliefs. It creates a massive gap between governance and the people it claims to represent.
The current political establishment wants laws to influence culture, instead of the culture influencing the laws.
I think a more interesting question is to isolate and answer where does culture say our rights come from?
> Basically can laws compensate for weak culture?
(Some) laws are remnants of past cultures. They possess inertia, but if you push hard enough, the mass will stop and then reverse direction.
Free speech is indeed our most vital ideal, but its strength is deeply tied to the cultural soil it grows in. Without shared norms and mutual respect, free speech can become fragile, misunderstood, weaponized, or silenced by polarization.....
While laws can protect speech to an extent, they can’t fully replace the social trust and shared values that make free expression both possible and tolerable for a society. True protection requires both legal safeguards and a collective commitment to the spirit of open dialogue, even when it challenges us. Safeguarding free speech means nurturing culture and law hand in hand, never compromising on either. 🤜🤛
nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpr9mhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet59uq3zamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0q9n8wumn8ghj7enfd36x2u3wdehhxarj9emkjmn99ah8qatzx9e8gmr3vdsnsu3kv96hjcthx4hr26pnds6ngv3jv3kngumj0y6kg7nxv4jngd3exen8zefcwvm8zem4v34hxdmydf6xvuelvfex7ctyvdshxapaw3e82egy8tpxn
here is the thing about free speech. it comes with responsibility.
people can say whatever they want to BUT with that comes the responsibility of accepting the consequences.
we are living in a permissive society that does not value personal responsibility.
we don't all need to agree on anything other than agree to listen and try to understand others, particularly those we disagree with.
for example, shitting on a person who has been murdered for their opinion/views is a sin, broadly speaking.
(sin originally means separation [from community/others])
take a look at far left and far right radicalism from a place of neutrality. ignore what is being argued and look at the devices being used in the words in order to create separation (sin).
for example:
"that's JUST YOUR opinion..." It's meant to separate and ostracize. it implies that the person is totally alone.
there's more to this than that and I am going off on a tangent now.
I'll end by saying 'can' does not mean 'should'/and knowing when to stfu is a skill that is developed over time and with reflection including self criticism when we eff it up.
I'll STFU now. 🤙❤️🙏
Laws are downstream from culture, and culture is downstream from spirit, and part of spirit is the quality of money, or lack thereof.
There is no debate with people who want to kill you. There is no debate with people who want to destroy the foundation of our society that makes debate possible. They must be rooted out and removed from power.
