Senator Lieberman proposes to eliminate Section 230 immunity from blogs

So we can end up with laws like this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

Altering rights in the heat of the moment is precisely what we don't want.

That's because Americans, unlike Europeans for example, aren't really bound by any pre-state history. There were no American tribes uniting, no real ethnicity, just fairly random people from around the world (though white Europeans mostly mattered). So the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence, some other writings) is like a deal signed by those people with their government and they treat it like a deal -- it shouldn't be changed without a very good reason and consent from parties involved, the original intent matters, etc, etc.

The whole idea of a social contract makes much more sense there.

The constitution, founders' philosophies, and other axiomatic ideas of government are a major part of how people are indoctrinated into the system throughout their schooling. Emphasizing a simple logical framework encourages them to identify with a fundamental soundness in the process despite the realities of the resulting utterly dysfunctional system. The constitution delusion continues in adulthood, with one generally either thinking that the "deviation" (ie outright contradiction) is necessary "interpretation" for the modern world OR thinking that constitutional law just isn't being followed hard enough, and as soon as the courts get around to making correct decisions we'll see some "real change". Modern day USG is clearly not bound by any sort of controlling law, document, or even the electoral process; but lacking any mechanism of change, cognitive dissonance is the only thing most people have.

(PS. Run through the Bill of Rights and count how many amendments could even possibly be in effect. I count three.)

>> How about deciding what's best for now

What is best now is not necessarily what is best for everyone. The constitution prevents mob rule. Is a filter that allows changes at a very slow rate so that we do not screw ourselves or some other minority at the heat of the moment.

You can make an argument that we should be contemplating changing our constitution, but what I read you saying was: "How about you just do whatever you want, instead of trying to actually follow the law?"

I'm going to write the following with the caveat that there are plenty of idiots who like to put words in the founding father's mouth, not realizing how divided they actually were post revolution:

Our Constitution is fundamentally built on the belief of individual freedom and equality of man in a "state of nature" (John Locke) and that the Bill of Rights builds on Locke's theories as to how the government should protect property and create Justice (The preamble to the Constitution, which also throws back to the Declaration).

The whole argument between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans was about the balance of natural freedoms and government impediment of those freedoms. The culmination of these arguments (an argument which eventually led to the Civil War) boiled into the supreme court and led to the concept of judicial review, which lays the ground work for legal precedent.

So, we're obsessed with precedent and the founding fathers not necessarily because of what we think they wanted, but because every legal argument stems from the belief that man is, and of right ought to be, free and independent. The Constitution forms the basis of the social contract of free and independent people. The Constitution can be changed and we have done so some 27 times. However, every argument fundamentally stems from the original point of view that all men are created equal.

It's not about interpreting the words of "a couple of guys" from 200 years ago. It's about whether or not our government has broken the social contract. The idea of "equality" itself has been a moving target in America, from land-owners to the Civil Rights movement. We are a country born out of tyranny, you know... It's fair to say that fear of tyranny is embedded in our culture and our laws.

The Constitution is the supreme law of our land.

There's a clearly-defined process for changing it (it's been done 27 times, in fact). "Deciding what's best for now" inevitably leads to abuses, or so many of us see it (who gets to "decide" what's "best"?)

"Interpret the words of a couple of guys 200 years ago as a gospel about how the internet should work?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That still works for me. What problems do you see with it?

What's interesting is that the U.S. constitution, even a couple hundred years after the fact seems like an outright progressive and radical document in most of the world today.

Actually I'm not an American, I'm Australian. I used to think the constitution obsession was naive nationalistic pride, but I've come to respect it.

It would be best if pragmatism could rule the day. However, that presupposes that decisions are being made for the benefit of the country rather than for political and personal reasons. Even up to the highest levels of office, I just don't think that is a standard politicians are living up to. I'm not sure any human is capable of it.

The constitution provides an anchor point to restrict the government, especially during turbulent times. I think there's incalculable value in that, even though it's slowly being eroded. Sure, the Patriot Act slipped through, but how many more would have without it?

Being bound by a 200 year old document isn't ideal, but it's better than the alternatives.

Depends on the state, but federal constitutional protection of voting rights for adult men didn't exist until the 14th Amendment in 1868. Until then, voting qualifications were a state matter, and even after that, the "penalty" was simply a proportional reduction in representation for the state.

Until the Civil War.

1965. Although technically Black Americans were allowed to vote in 1870, in practice it was impossible in many states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

Universal women's suffrage didn't happen until 1920.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...

The Federal Constitution (amended over time) has a list of reasons and qualifications which cannot be used to deny the vote. It is otherwise silent on the matter. Until the 14th and 15th amendments (1868, 1870), that list only included "religious test" (as in no religious test may be used to deny someone the franchise).

The several states each had (and have!) their own laws and regulations. Immediately following the ratification of the Constitution, states largely restricted voting rights to landholding white men. But by the 1840s most states had extended the right to vote to almost all white men, having done away with the requirement to own land, or pay taxes.

States continue to have different laws regarding voting rights, perhaps most notably surrounding the the rights of convicted felons.

You can get sued for anything. Whether or not the lawsuit has merit or not is another matter. I think that's the key here. Would you be liable give my hypothetical scenario?

I'll probably get down voted for this, but in every sense the guy is a fing ahole.

If he is not, his view of the world, and his decision process that brings him to rationalize supporting some of our most destructive legislation is truly disturbing.

He's so advanced at the process that he's done what you might think is impossible in the U.S., and gotten elected as a third party candidate, because he couldn't get the nomination of either of the two major parties.

Are there many professional politicians left at this stage who aren't covered by more or less that description?