[hnlmorg]

- freedom of speech.

Most Americans misunderstand what their freedom of speech actually entitles them to. What your freedom of speech actually covers is represented via other legislations over here. And much as I think our government is a farce, we do have access to tell our politicians that. Frankly, if recent politics have taught us anything, it’s that freedom of speech doesn’t protect us from a shitty government being formed.

- right to bear arms

I’m glad we don’t. It’s a fucking stupid right in our modern age. How many shootings do you guys need before you wake up and join the rest of the civilised world with tighter gun control. And for what it’s worth, you can own guns legally in the UK. We just don’t allow unhinged people to roam the streets with guns.

- protection from unreasonable search and seizure

We have that in the U.K.

Given all the problems the US police force suffer from, you’re really not in a position to be gloating about protections from crooked cops.

Don’t get me wrong, the US does get a lot of things right too. But I wouldn’t say it’s ahead of the U.K. (nor most of Europe) in terms of rights. Roughly equivalent perhaps, but not so far ahead that we should all be modelling ourselves after you.

[MoreSEMI]

I don't think you addressed any of his points.

Let’s say americans don’t understand what their rights to speech mean. It doesn’t matter since you didn’t repudiate the fact that they may have stronger speech rights.

You are glad that you don’t have the right to bear arms. But that does not seem to me to refute that a constitution is important to prevent erosion of rights or that the US is ahead in terms of rights. Just that you personally don’t care about that right.

Finally, you state that in the U.K there is also a protection from unreasonable search. Fair enough. But is it stronger than what is in the US? Is it protected in form of a constitutional right or just a law that can be repealed at any time?

The strongest argument is that despite these apparent constitutional guarantees, it has not prevented police from infringing on these rights. I would agree. But that seems to me to be an issue of enforcement. Not having these would mean there would be no legal basis to change police behavior, only a social impetus. That may be enough but I would like to have both options.

[andrewaylett]

What is "unreasonable", and regardless of the theoretical protections, are you at risk and do you have any practical recourse?

The scale of Civil Asset Forfeiture in the US suggests to me that large sections of US society are at risk and have no practical recourse.

Does the US having a written constitution actually help its society to retain their rights, or is it a fig leaf covering the rights you've already lost in practice, and an entitlement preventing society from changing rules that benefit those with power who exercise "rights" that ought not be so set in stone?

In practice, the state may compel speech from the powerless: https://thehill.com/homenews/3256719-47-states-require-the-p...

In practice, only some groups have the unalienable right to bear arms: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...

In practice, qualified immunity means there's no way to hold agents of the state accountable for violating your rights: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/20/george...

In the UK, Parliament has stated its intent to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights. It's true that one parliament cannot bind the next -- at any time, the UK parliament may decide to repeal everything and change even the foundations upon which our country's laws are built. The checks and balances in the system (including the House of Lords) protect us from the over-reach of a poor choice of government. Even with a large majority, and a stated aim of repealing the Human Rights Act, the current government has found itself unable to dismantle the our protections to the degree it would like.

I don't think you can argue that the US constitution gives you an inherent advantage in maintaining your rights.

[MoreSEMI]

I wasn’t arguing it. I was saying that the response failed to actually address the GP in the way you have.

[nsnick]

Legislation doesn’t guarantee rights. If the same body trying to violate your rights with a bill can just pass another bill to repeal your rights, your rights are not protected. Two things are required to guarantee rights from a government: a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government, neither of which the UK has.

[sjy]

> a constitution or charter that is extraordinarily difficult to modify, and a court system whose decisions can’t be overturned by the elected government

Remember Brexit? It took them almost four years to achieve after the referendum, in part due to decisions by the constitutional court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_Stat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...

[hnlmorg]

This is just a hypothetical destination at the end of the day.

For example the POTUS gets to appoint judges which has lead to the courts becoming increasingly partisan. And Trump did a pretty good job of abusing his power left right and centre without any repercussions.

Whereas on the flip side, UK politicians have been taken to court over the lawfulness of various decisions (such as “brexit”) and PMs forced to step down over incidents far less serious than anything that has resulted in POTUS impeachments.

And as much as the US constitution guarantees rights, the constitution can be changed. In fact 2 of the rights described here are amendments themselves.

We can all argue about which political system offers greater safeguards but ultimately it’s all just theoretical debate. A bad actor with sufficient support in either political system could do serious damage to the rights of their citizens.

So I think it’s a erroneous to distil the argument down to such a simplistic model and then argue that America is somehow more free than the U.K. because of it. A more valid argument would be that we are roughly equivalent in a subject that is clearly very complex.

[balls187]

In the US our rights are mostly protected by one’s ability to pay for legal protection.

I don’t know how it works in the UK.

Having rights is all well and good, but in the US we’ve see. countless cases of government infringing on those rights requiring government to resolve them (via legal proceedings).