@sun_
Freedom of speech does not mean what you think it means.
For example:
You are free to say whatever you want to whoever you want, but you are also responsible for the things you say. If you are badmouth someone, with or without justification, you are subject to libel law.
You can not say whatever you want in a private settings, like inside someone's business premise or someone's property (or this forum). That person has the right to kick you out if you say something stupid. Or even file lawsuit against you if you signed an agreement before using their private premise, to not say certain things. This over-rides the constitution.
The newspaper has the right to write whatever they want, but they are also subject to libel laws.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can publish top secret military spec on national media and get away with it. You might be subject to treason law.
There are hundreds of corner cases like this that you can't necessarily make individual law for each corner case, that why you have something wholesale like "reasonable restrictions". I believe this is true for most modern democracy out there, but I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
The problem, in this case and as often is the case, is not the law but the abuse of the law. Regardless of whatever is in the constitution or whatever is missing in the constitution; it makes little difference if the government is morally corrupt. They will find ways to bypass said laws, or ignore it altogether. They will make politically motivated appointment in supreme court and make sure they don't have much opposition on their position.
Laws are just that, words written on a piece of paper, if you don't value these laws and you are corrupt government; the laws mean jackshit.
|