I disagree free speech absolutism is the foundation of America. America is based on allegiance to the moral high ground.

The Declaration of Independence was about stating why we had the moral high ground to declare independence. It wasn’t about free speech absolutism.

There's a moral high ground in ignoring the speech you don't like. Instead of wanting to use the force of the state to prevent it.

That's cool, bro, but a little exploitable. What sort of high grounds we talking here?

I’m trying to weigh this more libertarian stance against the social contract idea I mentioned as well as the harm of the psychological projection habit.

I haven’t made a final judgment yet. Honestly.

What’s your reaction to the idea of a social contract between citizens?

Luckbox, sit this one out.

You aren't accepting or endorsing an idea if you allow it to be expressed

Have you ever had sex with a woman?

The social contract is about defense and general welfare. The government has a contract with the people stating that the freedom of speech is an inalienable right. This contract is the very legitimacy of the government itself to rule over us.

The social contract is not for American people to be loyalists.

I disagree with Rousseau on religion and his allusion to man being naturally wicked, as well as his 'general will of the people is best' routine but he did state that even he believed freedom and equality were natural rights to not be infringed upon.

The freedom to have ideas against the common will is nothing without the freedom to express those ideas.

More Perfect does a great breakdown of the 1A that is required listening for my students: https://open.spotify.com/album/6bon94az46dNJNVIK1P8vu

Why?

Have you ever had sex with a woman?

I'm a ConLaw professor, so I know these things.

And, for the record, I've had three kids, two miscarriages, and 20 years ago funded an abortion, so that's at least six times.

I can best that. I have seven.

I’m talking about a different social contract between American citizens. You seem to be viewing this through a historical and legal lens, but I’m requesting a moral discussion.

Oh boy, more fascist clowns.

Of course it should be allowed. We dont live in chezland, china or russia. Death to america is the flag burning crowd of the social media age.

You been busy

I am, too. The ability to formulate ideas is a natural right. Prohibiting the expression of those ideas when it doesn't infringe on the rights of others is immoral. Behavior that infringes on natural rights, on the other hand, legitimizes the use of behavior to prevent it.

The state has no moral legitimacy to decide what speech is immoral. Only what is dangerous. Saying "Death to America" is harmess. Forming an armed militia stating the goal is to kill America, on the other hand, is a dangerous behavior.

It is of course legal to chant "Death to America." But anyone that does this is a complete loser, and should be treated as such.

I was projecting

cm ?

Little different because it's the slogan of actual enemies of america so unlike flag burners, those people can become an actual threat deserving extermination if they start to act toward the slogan goal in any capacity.

So unlike flag burners you need to keep an eye and a target on them and shoot to kill the instant it's legal to do so (IE the instant they start acting violently, or planning violence, toward Americans).

But up to that moment they are free to chant whatever including that

I guess maybe this the crux of it: Is destroying the national identity among the citizenry harmless? Not just in the immediate but over time.

You disagreed on that in another thread though, you said you won't act to prevent people acting politically to remove rights.

Acting politically toward unconstitutional goals is a direct threat

Can't destroy something that doesn't exist

Elaborate. In your mind has it never existed?

We have laws that make it illegal for people to commit violence. We also have laws to prevent others from committing acts of violence towards someone else out of fear of those people committing violence towards them. It's a give and take that both works well in your favor.