alt Hacker NewsThat 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.
Replies
> 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.
> 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."
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.