Does the United States guarantee any unique freedoms?May the United States Congress remove any secretary?How does the Social Security Work in United States?What is the truthfullness of the film “Revolution.com - USA: The Conquest of the East”?Why do US local laws vary so much regarding the Second Amendment but so little regarding the First Amendment?Does the United States tax exports?Why does the United States call Japan an ally?Does the US Constitution's “to provide for the common defense” automatically apply to a non-existent but potential future cis-lunar economy?How does federalism in the United States work?Would a Social Credit System like the one contemplated in China be Constitutional In The U.SWhat are the primary source records which document the reasons for President Andrew Johnson's voiding of Sherman’s Special Field Order No. 15?
Why ReLU function is not differentiable at 0?
Why is Chromosome 1 called Chromosome 1?
How do these cubesats' whip antennas work?
Can ads on a page read my password?
Why can I log in to my Facebook account with a misspelled email/password?
Getting an entry level IT position later in life
Does this put me at risk for identity theft?
What city skyline is this picture of?
If someone else uploads my GPL'd code to Github without my permission, is that a copyright violation?
What could prevent players from leaving an island?
How to halve redstone signal strength?
Determine Beckett Grading Service (BGS) Final Grade
Why do private jets such as Gulfstream fly higher than other civilian jets?
What is a Casino Word™?
Does the Voyager team use a wrapper (Fortran(77?) to Python) to transmit current commands?
Is it double speak?
Probably terminated or laid off soon; confront or not?
Should I self-publish my novella on Amazon or try my luck getting publishers?
Is there a drawback to Flail Snail's Shell defense?
Did WWII Japanese soldiers engage in cannibalism of their enemies?
Responding to Plague Engineer
Why do proponents of guns oppose gun competency tests?
Print only the last three columns from file
How to help new students accept function notation
Does the United States guarantee any unique freedoms?
May the United States Congress remove any secretary?How does the Social Security Work in United States?What is the truthfullness of the film “Revolution.com - USA: The Conquest of the East”?Why do US local laws vary so much regarding the Second Amendment but so little regarding the First Amendment?Does the United States tax exports?Why does the United States call Japan an ally?Does the US Constitution's “to provide for the common defense” automatically apply to a non-existent but potential future cis-lunar economy?How does federalism in the United States work?Would a Social Credit System like the one contemplated in China be Constitutional In The U.SWhat are the primary source records which document the reasons for President Andrew Johnson's voiding of Sherman’s Special Field Order No. 15?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
As a lifelong citizen of the United States, I'm accustomed to hearing that the US is the "Land of the Free" and most patriotic celebrations seem to emphasize freedom as one of the unique qualities of life here. However, all of the American freedoms I'm aware of--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.--seem to be found throughout much of Western civilization. Are there any freedoms that are unique to either the United States or the North American continent?
united-states
asked 8 hours ago
GHZeroGHZero
311 bronze badge
New contributor
GHZero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 14 more comments
As a lifelong citizen of the United States, I'm accustomed to hearing that the US is the "Land of the Free" and most patriotic celebrations seem to emphasize freedom as one of the unique qualities of life here. However, all of the American freedoms I'm aware of--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.--seem to be found throughout much of Western civilization. Are there any freedoms that are unique to either the United States or the North American continent?
united-states
asked 8 hours ago
GHZeroGHZero
311 bronze badge
New contributor
GHZero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
While I disagree that the United States is necessarily the most free country, if such a thing can be objectively measured, nonetheless one important thing to note is that those freedoms you mention are interpreted very differently across nations, such that they're not really the same freedoms. For instance, in France bans on burkas, racist speech, and pro-life speech are viewed at least by the law as compatible with freedom of religion and speech.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
8
Several people have been arrested for "hate speech" in Europe. They don't have free speech, they have approved speech and it is simply barbaric. Free speech as we enjoy it in the US is unique.
– acpilot
8 hours ago
5
@acpilot - I wouldn't use quite that language. There's a continuum. There a forms of disapproved speech in the United States as well: fighting words, speech that is judged to pose a clear and present danger, defamation and false advertising.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
2
Right. Immediate, credible threats and outright slander are not considered free speech in the US. But there is a stark difference between a man with a knife saying "I'm going to kill you" and a someone "insulting human dignity" on social media. How is convicting people for mere opinions anything but barbaric? It's inexcusable and is absolutely not anything resembling "free speech."
– acpilot
8 hours ago
2
That has a direct, immediate, negative impact on a specific person. That is nothing like saying something generally unpleasant about immigrants. I stand by my statement. Criminalization of opinions is barbaric.
– acpilot
6 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
As a lifelong citizen of the United States, I'm accustomed to hearing that the US is the "Land of the Free" and most patriotic celebrations seem to emphasize freedom as one of the unique qualities of life here. However, all of the American freedoms I'm aware of--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.--seem to be found throughout much of Western civilization. Are there any freedoms that are unique to either the United States or the North American continent?
united-states
asked 8 hours ago
GHZeroGHZero
311 bronze badge
New contributor
GHZero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
As a lifelong citizen of the United States, I'm accustomed to hearing that the US is the "Land of the Free" and most patriotic celebrations seem to emphasize freedom as one of the unique qualities of life here. However, all of the American freedoms I'm aware of--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.--seem to be found throughout much of Western civilization. Are there any freedoms that are unique to either the United States or the North American continent?
united-states
united-states
asked 8 hours ago
GHZeroGHZero
311 bronze badge
New contributor
GHZero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
GHZeroGHZero
311 bronze badge
New contributor
GHZero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
GHZeroGHZero
311 bronze badge
New contributor
GHZero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
GHZeroGHZero
311 bronze badge
asked 8 hours ago
GHZeroGHZero
311 bronze badge
311 bronze badge
New contributor
GHZero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
GHZero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
While I disagree that the United States is necessarily the most free country, if such a thing can be objectively measured, nonetheless one important thing to note is that those freedoms you mention are interpreted very differently across nations, such that they're not really the same freedoms. For instance, in France bans on burkas, racist speech, and pro-life speech are viewed at least by the law as compatible with freedom of religion and speech.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
8
Several people have been arrested for "hate speech" in Europe. They don't have free speech, they have approved speech and it is simply barbaric. Free speech as we enjoy it in the US is unique.
– acpilot
8 hours ago
5
@acpilot - I wouldn't use quite that language. There's a continuum. There a forms of disapproved speech in the United States as well: fighting words, speech that is judged to pose a clear and present danger, defamation and false advertising.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
2
Right. Immediate, credible threats and outright slander are not considered free speech in the US. But there is a stark difference between a man with a knife saying "I'm going to kill you" and a someone "insulting human dignity" on social media. How is convicting people for mere opinions anything but barbaric? It's inexcusable and is absolutely not anything resembling "free speech."
– acpilot
8 hours ago
2
That has a direct, immediate, negative impact on a specific person. That is nothing like saying something generally unpleasant about immigrants. I stand by my statement. Criminalization of opinions is barbaric.
– acpilot
6 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
4
While I disagree that the United States is necessarily the most free country, if such a thing can be objectively measured, nonetheless one important thing to note is that those freedoms you mention are interpreted very differently across nations, such that they're not really the same freedoms. For instance, in France bans on burkas, racist speech, and pro-life speech are viewed at least by the law as compatible with freedom of religion and speech.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
8
Several people have been arrested for "hate speech" in Europe. They don't have free speech, they have approved speech and it is simply barbaric. Free speech as we enjoy it in the US is unique.
– acpilot
8 hours ago
5
@acpilot - I wouldn't use quite that language. There's a continuum. There a forms of disapproved speech in the United States as well: fighting words, speech that is judged to pose a clear and present danger, defamation and false advertising.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
2
Right. Immediate, credible threats and outright slander are not considered free speech in the US. But there is a stark difference between a man with a knife saying "I'm going to kill you" and a someone "insulting human dignity" on social media. How is convicting people for mere opinions anything but barbaric? It's inexcusable and is absolutely not anything resembling "free speech."
– acpilot
8 hours ago
2
That has a direct, immediate, negative impact on a specific person. That is nothing like saying something generally unpleasant about immigrants. I stand by my statement. Criminalization of opinions is barbaric.
– acpilot
6 hours ago
4
4
While I disagree that the United States is necessarily the most free country, if such a thing can be objectively measured, nonetheless one important thing to note is that those freedoms you mention are interpreted very differently across nations, such that they're not really the same freedoms. For instance, in France bans on burkas, racist speech, and pro-life speech are viewed at least by the law as compatible with freedom of religion and speech.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
While I disagree that the United States is necessarily the most free country, if such a thing can be objectively measured, nonetheless one important thing to note is that those freedoms you mention are interpreted very differently across nations, such that they're not really the same freedoms. For instance, in France bans on burkas, racist speech, and pro-life speech are viewed at least by the law as compatible with freedom of religion and speech.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
8
8
Several people have been arrested for "hate speech" in Europe. They don't have free speech, they have approved speech and it is simply barbaric. Free speech as we enjoy it in the US is unique.
– acpilot
8 hours ago
Several people have been arrested for "hate speech" in Europe. They don't have free speech, they have approved speech and it is simply barbaric. Free speech as we enjoy it in the US is unique.
– acpilot
8 hours ago
5
5
@acpilot - I wouldn't use quite that language. There's a continuum. There a forms of disapproved speech in the United States as well: fighting words, speech that is judged to pose a clear and present danger, defamation and false advertising.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
@acpilot - I wouldn't use quite that language. There's a continuum. There a forms of disapproved speech in the United States as well: fighting words, speech that is judged to pose a clear and present danger, defamation and false advertising.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
2
2
Right. Immediate, credible threats and outright slander are not considered free speech in the US. But there is a stark difference between a man with a knife saying "I'm going to kill you" and a someone "insulting human dignity" on social media. How is convicting people for mere opinions anything but barbaric? It's inexcusable and is absolutely not anything resembling "free speech."
– acpilot
8 hours ago
Right. Immediate, credible threats and outright slander are not considered free speech in the US. But there is a stark difference between a man with a knife saying "I'm going to kill you" and a someone "insulting human dignity" on social media. How is convicting people for mere opinions anything but barbaric? It's inexcusable and is absolutely not anything resembling "free speech."
– acpilot
8 hours ago
2
2
That has a direct, immediate, negative impact on a specific person. That is nothing like saying something generally unpleasant about immigrants. I stand by my statement. Criminalization of opinions is barbaric.
– acpilot
6 hours ago
That has a direct, immediate, negative impact on a specific person. That is nothing like saying something generally unpleasant about immigrants. I stand by my statement. Criminalization of opinions is barbaric.
– acpilot
6 hours ago
|
show 14 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution is a pretty good candidate:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
I imagine this right is effectively in place in many other countries, but without the prominence of being explicitly enumerated in their constitutions.
answered 8 hours ago
RogerRoger
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
Great catch. Quartering soldiers has only very rarely been a concern in human history, and the US just happened to be formed in that little sliver of time. I doubt many other countries even considered it!
– Michael W.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The Right to Bear Arms is found in only three nations: the USA, Mexico, and Guatemala.
While other countries allow their citizens to own firearms, they have no constitutional backing if the governments decide they can no longer allow this.
answered 8 hours ago
CarduusCarduus
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
1
For the sake of accuracy, the US Constitution does not grant citizens the right to bear arms. The drafters considered a person's right to bear arms a natural right, granted by God. What the Constitution does is ensure that this right "shall not be infringed". The US Government has no authority to take away this right. It's way outside its jurisdiction.
– Michael_B
7 hours ago
6
@Michael_B - That's a bit of linguistic specificity. Whether or not God grants such rights, the US constitution must also grant them in order for them to have any practical meaning. And the US government most certainly can take away this or any other right, with two thirds of the legislature and the approval of three quarters of the states. This applies to everything from the process of remuneration of politicians in the 27th amendment to the freedom of religion in the First.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
1
Yes, the government has the power to infringe on these rights and attempt to take them away. That would be a sure way to spark a Civil War.
– Michael_B
6 hours ago
1
@Michael_B - You will note, of course, that that is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
2
@Michael_B - A civil war against any amendment agreed to by at least three quarters of the population, and quite likely more, would be amusingly one-sided.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
GHZero is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43518%2fdoes-the-united-states-guarantee-any-unique-freedoms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution is a pretty good candidate:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
I imagine this right is effectively in place in many other countries, but without the prominence of being explicitly enumerated in their constitutions.
answered 8 hours ago
RogerRoger
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
Great catch. Quartering soldiers has only very rarely been a concern in human history, and the US just happened to be formed in that little sliver of time. I doubt many other countries even considered it!
– Michael W.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution is a pretty good candidate:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
I imagine this right is effectively in place in many other countries, but without the prominence of being explicitly enumerated in their constitutions.
answered 8 hours ago
RogerRoger
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
Great catch. Quartering soldiers has only very rarely been a concern in human history, and the US just happened to be formed in that little sliver of time. I doubt many other countries even considered it!
– Michael W.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution is a pretty good candidate:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
I imagine this right is effectively in place in many other countries, but without the prominence of being explicitly enumerated in their constitutions.
answered 8 hours ago
RogerRoger
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution is a pretty good candidate:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
I imagine this right is effectively in place in many other countries, but without the prominence of being explicitly enumerated in their constitutions.
answered 8 hours ago
RogerRoger
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
RogerRoger
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
RogerRoger
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
RogerRoger
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
1,5821 silver badge19 bronze badges
Great catch. Quartering soldiers has only very rarely been a concern in human history, and the US just happened to be formed in that little sliver of time. I doubt many other countries even considered it!
– Michael W.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Great catch. Quartering soldiers has only very rarely been a concern in human history, and the US just happened to be formed in that little sliver of time. I doubt many other countries even considered it!
– Michael W.
3 hours ago
Great catch. Quartering soldiers has only very rarely been a concern in human history, and the US just happened to be formed in that little sliver of time. I doubt many other countries even considered it!
– Michael W.
3 hours ago
Great catch. Quartering soldiers has only very rarely been a concern in human history, and the US just happened to be formed in that little sliver of time. I doubt many other countries even considered it!
– Michael W.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The Right to Bear Arms is found in only three nations: the USA, Mexico, and Guatemala.
While other countries allow their citizens to own firearms, they have no constitutional backing if the governments decide they can no longer allow this.
answered 8 hours ago
CarduusCarduus
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
1
For the sake of accuracy, the US Constitution does not grant citizens the right to bear arms. The drafters considered a person's right to bear arms a natural right, granted by God. What the Constitution does is ensure that this right "shall not be infringed". The US Government has no authority to take away this right. It's way outside its jurisdiction.
– Michael_B
7 hours ago
6
@Michael_B - That's a bit of linguistic specificity. Whether or not God grants such rights, the US constitution must also grant them in order for them to have any practical meaning. And the US government most certainly can take away this or any other right, with two thirds of the legislature and the approval of three quarters of the states. This applies to everything from the process of remuneration of politicians in the 27th amendment to the freedom of religion in the First.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
1
Yes, the government has the power to infringe on these rights and attempt to take them away. That would be a sure way to spark a Civil War.
– Michael_B
6 hours ago
1
@Michael_B - You will note, of course, that that is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
2
@Michael_B - A civil war against any amendment agreed to by at least three quarters of the population, and quite likely more, would be amusingly one-sided.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
The Right to Bear Arms is found in only three nations: the USA, Mexico, and Guatemala.
While other countries allow their citizens to own firearms, they have no constitutional backing if the governments decide they can no longer allow this.
answered 8 hours ago
CarduusCarduus
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
1
For the sake of accuracy, the US Constitution does not grant citizens the right to bear arms. The drafters considered a person's right to bear arms a natural right, granted by God. What the Constitution does is ensure that this right "shall not be infringed". The US Government has no authority to take away this right. It's way outside its jurisdiction.
– Michael_B
7 hours ago
6
@Michael_B - That's a bit of linguistic specificity. Whether or not God grants such rights, the US constitution must also grant them in order for them to have any practical meaning. And the US government most certainly can take away this or any other right, with two thirds of the legislature and the approval of three quarters of the states. This applies to everything from the process of remuneration of politicians in the 27th amendment to the freedom of religion in the First.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
1
Yes, the government has the power to infringe on these rights and attempt to take them away. That would be a sure way to spark a Civil War.
– Michael_B
6 hours ago
1
@Michael_B - You will note, of course, that that is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
2
@Michael_B - A civil war against any amendment agreed to by at least three quarters of the population, and quite likely more, would be amusingly one-sided.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
The Right to Bear Arms is found in only three nations: the USA, Mexico, and Guatemala.
While other countries allow their citizens to own firearms, they have no constitutional backing if the governments decide they can no longer allow this.
answered 8 hours ago
CarduusCarduus
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
The Right to Bear Arms is found in only three nations: the USA, Mexico, and Guatemala.
While other countries allow their citizens to own firearms, they have no constitutional backing if the governments decide they can no longer allow this.
answered 8 hours ago
CarduusCarduus
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
CarduusCarduus
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
CarduusCarduus
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
CarduusCarduus
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
7,00912 silver badges32 bronze badges
1
For the sake of accuracy, the US Constitution does not grant citizens the right to bear arms. The drafters considered a person's right to bear arms a natural right, granted by God. What the Constitution does is ensure that this right "shall not be infringed". The US Government has no authority to take away this right. It's way outside its jurisdiction.
– Michael_B
7 hours ago
6
@Michael_B - That's a bit of linguistic specificity. Whether or not God grants such rights, the US constitution must also grant them in order for them to have any practical meaning. And the US government most certainly can take away this or any other right, with two thirds of the legislature and the approval of three quarters of the states. This applies to everything from the process of remuneration of politicians in the 27th amendment to the freedom of religion in the First.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
1
Yes, the government has the power to infringe on these rights and attempt to take them away. That would be a sure way to spark a Civil War.
– Michael_B
6 hours ago
1
@Michael_B - You will note, of course, that that is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
2
@Michael_B - A civil war against any amendment agreed to by at least three quarters of the population, and quite likely more, would be amusingly one-sided.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
1
For the sake of accuracy, the US Constitution does not grant citizens the right to bear arms. The drafters considered a person's right to bear arms a natural right, granted by God. What the Constitution does is ensure that this right "shall not be infringed". The US Government has no authority to take away this right. It's way outside its jurisdiction.
– Michael_B
7 hours ago
6
@Michael_B - That's a bit of linguistic specificity. Whether or not God grants such rights, the US constitution must also grant them in order for them to have any practical meaning. And the US government most certainly can take away this or any other right, with two thirds of the legislature and the approval of three quarters of the states. This applies to everything from the process of remuneration of politicians in the 27th amendment to the freedom of religion in the First.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
1
Yes, the government has the power to infringe on these rights and attempt to take them away. That would be a sure way to spark a Civil War.
– Michael_B
6 hours ago
1
@Michael_B - You will note, of course, that that is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
2
@Michael_B - A civil war against any amendment agreed to by at least three quarters of the population, and quite likely more, would be amusingly one-sided.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
1
1
For the sake of accuracy, the US Constitution does not grant citizens the right to bear arms. The drafters considered a person's right to bear arms a natural right, granted by God. What the Constitution does is ensure that this right "shall not be infringed". The US Government has no authority to take away this right. It's way outside its jurisdiction.
– Michael_B
7 hours ago
For the sake of accuracy, the US Constitution does not grant citizens the right to bear arms. The drafters considered a person's right to bear arms a natural right, granted by God. What the Constitution does is ensure that this right "shall not be infringed". The US Government has no authority to take away this right. It's way outside its jurisdiction.
– Michael_B
7 hours ago
6
6
@Michael_B - That's a bit of linguistic specificity. Whether or not God grants such rights, the US constitution must also grant them in order for them to have any practical meaning. And the US government most certainly can take away this or any other right, with two thirds of the legislature and the approval of three quarters of the states. This applies to everything from the process of remuneration of politicians in the 27th amendment to the freedom of religion in the First.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
@Michael_B - That's a bit of linguistic specificity. Whether or not God grants such rights, the US constitution must also grant them in order for them to have any practical meaning. And the US government most certainly can take away this or any other right, with two thirds of the legislature and the approval of three quarters of the states. This applies to everything from the process of remuneration of politicians in the 27th amendment to the freedom of religion in the First.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
1
1
Yes, the government has the power to infringe on these rights and attempt to take them away. That would be a sure way to spark a Civil War.
– Michael_B
6 hours ago
Yes, the government has the power to infringe on these rights and attempt to take them away. That would be a sure way to spark a Civil War.
– Michael_B
6 hours ago
1
1
@Michael_B - You will note, of course, that that is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
@Michael_B - You will note, of course, that that is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
2
2
@Michael_B - A civil war against any amendment agreed to by at least three quarters of the population, and quite likely more, would be amusingly one-sided.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
@Michael_B - A civil war against any amendment agreed to by at least three quarters of the population, and quite likely more, would be amusingly one-sided.
– Obie 2.0
6 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
GHZero is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
GHZero is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
GHZero is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
GHZero is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43518%2fdoes-the-united-states-guarantee-any-unique-freedoms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
While I disagree that the United States is necessarily the most free country, if such a thing can be objectively measured, nonetheless one important thing to note is that those freedoms you mention are interpreted very differently across nations, such that they're not really the same freedoms. For instance, in France bans on burkas, racist speech, and pro-life speech are viewed at least by the law as compatible with freedom of religion and speech.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
8
Several people have been arrested for "hate speech" in Europe. They don't have free speech, they have approved speech and it is simply barbaric. Free speech as we enjoy it in the US is unique.
– acpilot
8 hours ago
5
@acpilot - I wouldn't use quite that language. There's a continuum. There a forms of disapproved speech in the United States as well: fighting words, speech that is judged to pose a clear and present danger, defamation and false advertising.
– Obie 2.0
8 hours ago
2
Right. Immediate, credible threats and outright slander are not considered free speech in the US. But there is a stark difference between a man with a knife saying "I'm going to kill you" and a someone "insulting human dignity" on social media. How is convicting people for mere opinions anything but barbaric? It's inexcusable and is absolutely not anything resembling "free speech."
– acpilot
8 hours ago
2
That has a direct, immediate, negative impact on a specific person. That is nothing like saying something generally unpleasant about immigrants. I stand by my statement. Criminalization of opinions is barbaric.
– acpilot
6 hours ago