[RpFLCL]

I often wonder if it's possible to encourage lawmakers to pass laws in the opposite direction.

I.e., to instead pass laws that guarantee the right of citizens to share information, make content, etc in ways that shall not be infringed. Laws that affirm freedom of expression and free speech in the digital space, instead of laws that increasingly punish common behavior in the name of copyright or "think of the children" type rhetoric.

I don't have much experience in law so I don't know if something like this is even possible. Can laws only dictate punishments? Is it possible to use legislation to make encroachments of freedom harder, or does that require a constitutional amendment? Is it a question of financial lobbying power?

Perhaps a more legally informed user could chime in about how feasible it is to push for legislation in the other direction.

[ramphastidae]

That’s called the Bill of Rights, and the entire point of the government (originally) was to protect the rights enshrined therein. Unfortunately that ideal was lost long ago and our legislators no longer operate in good faith. So asking them nicely to reform the system they so dutifully corrupted isn’t likely to do it.

[markkanof]

More specifically, the idea is that we as humans just have certain rights and the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent the government from infringing in any way on those rights. It seems that many elected officials do not understand that or have realized that they can seemingly get away with things as there is no direct way for any of us to challenge them.

[bilegeek]

> Is it possible to use legislation to make encroachments of freedom harder, or does that require a constitutional amendment?

This phrase just drags me into darkness. Things are so broken, that such legislation is impossible to imagine today.

IANAL, but theoretically, yes, we have the ability to pass and enforce laws that would protect individual and societal rights. In practice, you would need a complete overhaul of both the rules and incentives of the current political system; however, such an overhaul would need a fair and just system to be here in the first place, otherwise it'll just entrench the authoritarianism and/or refuse to enforce the good parts, put in there only as platitudes. So, actually, no.

[tacocataco]

"I often wonder if it's possible to encourage lawmakers to pass laws in the opposite direction"

How can you encourage them to do anything when people "vote #color no matter who"?

Our First Past the Post electoral system [1] encourages this blind tribalism. Attempting to vote outside of the two party system puts #otherside in power.

Representatives have no incentive to be anything other than not the other political party.

People are forced to vote against someone they don't want in office, rather than for someone they do want in office.

(1) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

[frongpik]

Restrictions and punishments always have concrete beneficiaries - dark, broken personalities with a blind lust for power and money. On the other hand, freedoms don't have concrete beneficiaries, so it takes a Lincoln-caliber person to advocate for them.

[gregatragenet3]

It's very possible. Simply outspend the other side Disney et al on lobbying and campaign donations.