A commenter on the Bill of Rights thread reckons my current wording is open to abuse. At the moment it reads as follows:
The theory is that speech needs to be defined, and I can see the point. While the US courts have adopted a wide definition of speech (covering writing and other media) it is probably wise to make that clear. I think we might adopt something along the lines of "the free exchange of information, opinion and ideas". Information covers us on fact, opinion on things which are less settled, and ideas on the purely speculative.No law or regulation is permitted that restricts the right to freedom of speech or limits the freedom of the media.
The other area which is problematic is the extent to which the clause should cover commercial speech. The US Constitution is silent on this aspect, but the courts have found that while commercial speech is covered by the first amendment, the protections are less than those offered to non-commercial. Essentially speech regarding illegal products is out, as is deceptive speech.
Speech regarding illegal products seems a bit of a red-herring to me. You are hardly going to advertise your cocaine prices because it points the police straight to you.
Deception is different though. This is potentially a very risky area, since one man's "deceptive" is another's "true".
A thought occurs to me as to how we might get out of this, though. Since commercial speech forms part of a contract - the requirement to refrain from statements which are deceptive is contained in the common law. I wonder if we can distinguish between laws (written) and the common law (unwritten) in such a way as to prevent government from making laws that breach the principle of free speech and allowing common law to protect consumers.
So here's a revised suggestion:
Government shall make no law or regulation that restricts the free exchange of information, opinion and ideas, or limits the freedom of the media.
I've been planning a separate document on interpretation, and I think that this will be the place to make it clear that this does exactly what it says - ie it protects all speech including commercial speech.
So. What do you think?