I’m not arguing for the supremacy of speech rights - if I were writing a constitution for a country right now I would not even include freedom of speech or expression in it. I’m pointing out the supremacy of the constitution over legislation because that’s a legal fact.
As I said:
There are tests in law that judges apply to determine whether something counts as protected expression. Violence and arson aren’t going to make the cut. But if someone is going to come and tell me that standing in front of construction equipment to prevent a pipeline from being built is not protected expression, I think they should be able to explain the legal principles that show that. If not, why wouldn’t I assume they are just pulling confirmation bias ala:
I’m just sick of arguments that say that the right to be paid to deliver hate speech is protected but the right to laugh at your government isn’t. They all follow similar lines. Free speech is inviolable when someone is saying something odious, but there’s always some kind of legalistic-sounding argument for what it doesn’t apply to actual protests.
But free speech vs. ownership of property is not a constitutional clash. There is no constitutional right to own property.
