[justinmk]

> you will be beholden to some party for [...] the right to communicate

This is the most poignant insight in the article. For some decades now, it has been accepted--with minimal opposition--that we are beholden to some party (the state) for the right to travel. Then it is not far-fetched to imagine that in some decades, the right to communicate may be popularly regarded as a mere "privilege" which is granted by the generosity of the state. We accept random searches at airports, centralized driver licensing, red light cameras, etc. The legislature already flirts with the digital equivalents of those concepts.

[gaius]

That is why the Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of a Bill of Rights. Because they knew people would come to believe their rights were granted by the document, instead of merely being non-exhaustively listed in it.