The fact is, constitutionally, the USSR had free speech. You asserted that constitutional free speech was more important that the mode of government.
I appreciate your points about positive provision of rights by the government, versus prohibition against violation of rights by the government, but I don't find that argument convincing that it makes all the difference. The fact is, the U.S. government ensures your rights are protected and can be exercised through its own numerous positive actions (for example, putting police on the streets, providing you with a lawyer if you don't have one, reading you your Miranda rights when arrested, FUNDING POLITICAL ACTIVITY), not merely by preventing itself or others from violating your rights.
Ask yourself, if the Soviet constitution had enumerated and protected rights in the same prohibitive fashion as the U.S. constitution does, would that really have made sufficient difference to guarantee that Soviet citizens had genuine right to speak freely?
That is essentially the conclusion that should be drawn from your argument, but I find it rather absurd to suppose that re-writing the Soviet constitution would have made such a difference, don't you?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/2/11 09:54 (UTC)The fact is, constitutionally, the USSR had free speech. You asserted that constitutional free speech was more important that the mode of government.
I appreciate your points about positive provision of rights by the government, versus prohibition against violation of rights by the government, but I don't find that argument convincing that it makes all the difference. The fact is, the U.S. government ensures your rights are protected and can be exercised through its own numerous positive actions (for example, putting police on the streets, providing you with a lawyer if you don't have one, reading you your Miranda rights when arrested, FUNDING POLITICAL ACTIVITY), not merely by preventing itself or others from violating your rights.
Ask yourself, if the Soviet constitution had enumerated and protected rights in the same prohibitive fashion as the U.S. constitution does, would that really have made sufficient difference to guarantee that Soviet citizens had genuine right to speak freely?
That is essentially the conclusion that should be drawn from your argument, but I find it rather absurd to suppose that re-writing the Soviet constitution would have made such a difference, don't you?