Nothing there about a legal right to an opinion.Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Did I miss something?
Perhaps it's in the vide?
This is a simple case of progressive thought gone astray and entirely impractical. So uber philosophically minded and theory-laden that it will remain hopelessly academic with no practical application whatsoever. Unless, of course, you consider self-fancied, fumbling philosophers engaged in a circle jerk a practical endeavor. I do not.
Not that it's badly written, mind you, nor without it's particular, albeit narrow intrigue. The author does a great job of exploring and articulating an interesting bit of insight concerning the manner in which people cling to their beliefs, and furthermore (and perhaps even darkly); whether they are entitled to...
I personally find it both amusing and ironic that the OP, of whom I believe I can fairly state is quite humanistic in nature; would become enamored with a notion that is so completely bass ackwards of the the human experience.
But what the hey...am I even truly entitled to even form an opinion here?
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
That covers the legal protection of opinion. Not just having one, but expressing it.
Plain as day.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion hurtinhvac, but the rational man is ready to abandon or modify it when it's proven to be in opposition to the observed facts.
I do not want to give my opinion on this, as to date my wife has not yet told me what it is??????
However, in an unprecedented period of unabashed entitlement as we are seeing today; to the extent that many feel housing, food, cars, cell phones, big screen TVs etc should be a given - I hardly think it an accurate perception of current trends to champion a school of thought that would deny even your right to a simple opinion.
There is the way the self-prescribed and comically "enlightened" people think things should be, and then there is the way things truly are. Never the twain shall meet...
However, the government does pro-actively secure everybody's right to express their opinions.
But being ensured the liberty to express any opinion, so long as it is not something like shouting "fire" in a crowded hall, is not at all the same thing as having the right to any opinion.
You see, when someone expresses a false opinion which is shown to be contrary to evidence or some such they might say something like "Yeah, well, I have a right to my opinion" and when they say this they do not mean "I have a right to express my opinion" which would be a weird thing to say - what they actually mean is that I have the right to consider all my opinions to be true.
The problem then is that if they do have such a right then we have a duty to ensure that they have true opinions which means the the debate should continue - not stop - and continue until such time as their right has been fulfilled and the prior violation of that right - them holding a false opinion - is remedied by way of the continued debate.
But they usually appeal to the fictional right just when they no longer want the discussion to continue - but they try stopping the discussion by appealing to the right which if existed then the conversation should in fact go on until their right is no longer being violated.
You see - they would never admit to meaning that they have a right to hold false opinions so they should just be left with their false opinions. Even if they did there actually is no such right.