[sirspacey]

because that pretty much is the state of any kind of speach it could apply to. either we operate from it as a first principle/“sacred text” or its scope shrinks as modern life loses any literal comparison to life in the late 1700s

[rayiner]

That doesn’t make any sense. To the extent that “modern life” diverges from the late 1700s, then you don’t need the First Amendment. Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.

[staticman2]

What doesn't make any sense is proposing the constitution be interpreted as it was when there was no general right to vote or general right to political speech... then claiming this is the "voters decide" option.

[rayiner]

Your argument undermines the whole idea of written constitutions. It just means that we should ignore the First Amendment altogether. If there is a problem with what people thought in 1789, how can words written back then possibly bind elected legislatures in 2026 in any whatsoever?

[colinb]

Your argument ignores two things.

First, the US constitution as it currently stands admits modifications. Amendments are version bumps. My understanding is that they’re harder to come by these days.

Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing. In particular, the interpretation of laws around restriction of free speech have lots of history of being interpreted in ways that may or may not be congruent with the intentions of the original authors, who’re dead, so we’ll never know the truth of it. It’s only been 107 years since the US Supreme Court decided that anti-draft speech in time of war COULD BE ILLEGAL. Apparently that was partially overturned in 1969.

Thirdly [naming, caching and out by one bugs!] it is far from clear that a written constitution will lead to a durable republic. It’s only been ~250 years. Too soon to tell.

[rayiner]

> Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing

It’s okay if the change is because you think the new interpretation is closer to what the constitution originally meant.

It’s democratically illegitimate to change the interpretation otherwise. A written constitution is already an impingement on democracy. But how can it be that whoever is doing the interpreting is allowed to restrict democratically adopted laws in ways the constitution didn’t originally intend to restrict them?

[staticman2]

There is no right to vote in the constitution as written and interpreted in the 1700s. There is also no guarantee of freedom of speech. The first amendment was considered a rule that only applied federally.

What's democratically illegitimate is everything you wrote in this thread.

If your state government threw you in jail for what you just wrote that would be perfectly aligned with your "original understanding" interpretation of the U.S constitution.

[SilverElfin]

> Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.

No, they can’t. The point of the constitution is to prevent arbitrary changes that violate the civil rights of the individual. A tyranny of the majority (the flaw in democracy) does not get to override fundamental individual rights.

[rayiner]

> A tyranny of the majority (the flaw in democracy) does not get to override fundamental individual rights.

“Sexual speech” isn’t a “fundamental individual right.” And if you disagree with me about that, then we have to put it to a vote, right?

[NotPractical]

By "fundamental individual right", I believe they're referring to the first amendment. How we should interpret the first amendment is not something we can put up to a vote. Only the judicial branch holds the power to interpret the law. As the root commenter noted, the Supreme Court has already decided that sexual speech is not necessarily protected by the first amendment.

At the same time, you're allowed to disagree with their decision. The Supreme Court tries its best, but there is no "100% correct" interpretation and individual justices often disagree (as they did on Miller v. California).

[donkeybeer]

You can try to put it to a vote but I doubt Article V's requirements would be met in today's environment. So what's the point that useless thought exercise?

[Spivak]

> Voters in 2026 can decide what kind of speech they want to ban or not.

You're essentially arguing against a constitution. Governments can work without one but it should at least be recognized what we're losing. There are no longer any practical limits to what laws legislators are allowed to enact.

There's a huge disconnect between what the voters want and what legislators actually enact which is why I'm glad we have a constitution. My home state, Ohio, actually tried to limit ballot initiatives because they knew they knew the upcoming abortion ballot measure was going to pass. Literally the definition of legislators not representing the will of the people. I wouldn't ever argue "some state legislature passed a law therefore it must be what the people wanted."

[rayiner]

> I wouldn't ever argue "some state legislature passed a law therefore it must be what the people wanted."

That’s a broadside argument against democracy. You’re not just saying that legislatures sometimes don’t reflect the will of the electorate. You’re saying that’s the default. Do you really think that’s the case here? That people in Utah don’t support a porn tax?

The Ohio abortion referendum doesn’t prove your premise. It shows that, when you put a single issue to a public vote, you can get a different result than a legislature, where factions necessarily have to form coalitions to support or oppose platforms including many issues. If you put the abortion issue in a referendum with other issues like say police funding, you would probably get a different result—even with no legislators standing between the public and the outcome.

And how is your alternative proposal better? If elected legislatures don’t reflect the will of the people, doesn’t that go doubly or triply so for a handful of unelected judges interpreting a “constitution?”

[Spivak]

> If you put the abortion issue in a referendum with other issues like say police funding, you would probably get a different result.

Ohio actually is aware of this which is why in the state constitution there's a rule that bills must have a single subject. The hypothetical abortion plus police funding bill would be unconstitutional.