It seems that you are making a Frederick Douglas type argument -- the Constitution and its principles are correct, but have been misapplied. I don't think that is inconsistent with what I am suggesting. Why could not (or why should not) a socialist society adopt the language of the 1st Amendment as its guiding principle for treatment of dissent in the society? Because the 1st Amendment is very short, it will need interpretation in concrete instances, so why not also see what the Supreme Court has done with concrete instances? It would have no obligation to be bound, but why reinvent the wheel?
David Shemano ^^^ CB: I agree that a socialist society must have a principle of freedom of speech. I don't see why not the language "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech" or whatever it is exactly. Now that you draw my attention to it, I don't see why a socialist society wouldn't have a principle of judicial review, though I think it might be necessary to make constitutional amendment a bit more readily available than it is in the U.S. Constitution. I'd have to think about that. Socialism might want law to be more in the hands of the People and less in the hands of a professional class, People's courts and all that. That's worth discussing. As my first post claims, I think the U.S. Supreme Court's history in interpreting the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech has been , unfortunately, fraudulent in that it upheld suppression of free speech for socialists and communists at the points at which s and c's speech might have effectively impacted important political events. What good is freedom of speech if you don't have it when your speech might shape politics ? In that regard, the lessons from Supreme Court's decisions are negative, but I don't see why we can't use that experience in the way you say ; but how _not_ to use the First Amendment. I have to confess to you that I hold that Nazi and KKK speech ( fascistic racist speech) should not be given First Amendment protection. I say we have learned from history that their ideas have nothing worthwhile in them, and we don't need to let them circulate in the marketplace of ideas. We can decide constitutionally that we never, ever want a Nazi or KKK form of government. Hasn't history taught us that ? In that respect, I have a more concrete ,less abstract than most interpretation of history, perhaps.
