[oohaargh]

It really isn't exactly how it works though - correct me where I'm going wrong here, because I've just read all these responses and feel I must be going insane.

The ideology is that human beings ought to have some intrinsic rights. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to codify those rights in the context of how _the US government_ can interact with people (regardless of their citizenship).

The idea that a UK citizen has these rights by default because they're in the US Bill of Rights, and can then have these rights deprived of them _by their own government_ is the part of this that is hilariously American. Of course, if it was the US government taking the action then that would be a different story altogether, but the US isn't involved at any point

[andrewxdiamond]

It works that way to say that these rights are _above_ the US government. The government isn’t “granting” them, and it can’t take them away. The bill of rights is descriptive, not prescriptive.

The side effect here is that technically, according to US lore, the situation you describe with the UK is correct. And it’s kindof how US citizens think.

You have the right to protest your government. You have the right to say whatever you want. You have the right to defend yourself. You may not agree, but that’s what US lore says, and it feeds a lot of our international behavior.