The bigger question is if Canada can enforce their regressive idea of Free Expression on US Service providers simply because of their presence in Canada
Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.
Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it).
Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specific cases, is stand on the street screaming "Let's kill all white/black/asian/aboriginal people right now". For that, you might land yourself in some trouble.
Dual citizen here. Canadians and Americans understand free speech to mean different things, and from the US point of view, Canada does not actually have free speech.
A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named).
In the USA such bans are unconstitutional. Therefore US media is allowed to report on details of Canadian cases that Canadian media can't.
My first exposure to the Internet was during the trial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo and I well remember the arguments between Canadians upset that the case was being reported on against the judge's orders, and Americans who wondered what part of the phrase "free speech" the Canadians didn't get. Having just moved from Canada to the USA myself, it was a nice piece of culture shock.
Thanks for chiming in. This comment was really helpful.
The difference in the Bernardo case is that in Canada persons detained or charged with an offence are innocent until proven guilty. I'd wager that reporting on a case against a judge's orders creates the presumption of guilt, counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is hardcoded into our law here, whereas it is not in the United States where it is inferred.
Frankly that case seems perfectly rational to me, as it protects the innocent who might be smeared and have their lives ruined by such reporting, for the price of denying us the intrigue and scandal of those kinds of cases -- but I was too young to remember the Bernardo case itself.
The presumption in Canada is that there is a balance to be found between different kinds of rights, and the government can be trusted to do a reasonable job of finding it. I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise.
The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection against the government. While we may feel for the person who gets smeared by public rumor, we are scared of giving judges power to casually order the media around. This becomes in a sense a self-fulfilling prophecy. We hold our government to low standards, and our government fails to achieve them, which confirms the low opinion that we have of our government.
In the case of high profile cases, the Canadian approach is to say that the media can't report. Jurors show up each day, hear evidence, and go home. Then eventually they make a decision. The US approach is to select a jury that has not yet been biased by the case, and then put them in a hotel with no access to the media.
The controversy in the Bernardo case was because Canadian jurors could go home, turn on the TV, and hear an American station reporting on allegations that might or might not have enough evidence behind them to show up in court. So Canadians wanted American media to stop irresponsibly reporting on it. But how would YOU feel if another country wanted Canadian companies to follow THEIR laws? Yeah, that's exactly how Americans felt about the Canadian complaints.
>I remember feeling that way, and wondering how a rational person could see it otherwise.
Because history has proven time and time again that government can not, and should not be trusted.
>The presumption in the USA is that government is fundamentally untrustworthy and our enumerated rights exist as a protection against the government.
The presumption in the USA is that rights are not enumerated at all, we do not have enumerated rights. The Bill of rights is not designed or intended to list all of the rights a person has.
The constitution is a document outlining what government can do, if the constitution does not give the government the authority, the government is prohibited from acting.
This is almost the exact opposite of however other nations government is authorized where the government is giving total power and then some government powers are prohibited or limited.
I do not see how any rational person would want to give government near unlimited power.
If you read more carefully, you'd have realized that you're about 25 years late to express your point of view to me..but thank you anyways for presenting standard American dogma. Which I am quite familiar with, and I know the history, legal theory, and legal practice far better than most Americans. Possibly better than you do.
And no, the USA does not say that rights are limited to the ones enumerated in the Constitution. However the ones enumerated in the Constitution do have special legal status.
Thanks for the context. That's a tough one. Of course there is no stopping Americans from doing what they want in this case, especially pursuing information.
I honestly have no immediate answers for situations like this. Our current frameworks don't allow for it.
Frankly, I support the idea of global democratic bodies working on issues like this for willing members. But I'm a natural born humanist, so I'm extremely biased!
In the US there is definitely concern that reporting can bias a jury pool such that they no longer presume the innocence of the accused. Freedom of Speech and the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven are not considered to be mutually incompatible, and the issue is generally resolved during jury selection.
A large difference between the US and many jurisdictions is the extreme aversion to prior restraint.
In the US it's perfectly possible to go after someone for publishing/saying something, if in doing so they violated a law (for example, if they deliberately falsely described someone as a criminal), and recover damages and possibly an injunction against them preventing further harm to you.
However, it is designed to be as difficult as humanly possible -- verging on impossible -- to prevent someone from speaking/publishing in the first place. Ordering something never to be said or published at all (rather than allowing damages to be recovered after the fact) is prior restraint, and the US legal system is incredibly hostile to that.
So although there are times when it's permitted in the US, they're rare and the standard which must be cleared is very high. Which in turn leads to people from the US being surprised at the (from our perspective) seemingly casual way that prior restraints on speech are handed out in other countries.
Basically, a comedian made a comment in reference to a kid who'd sought donations because he was dying. His quip was:
"But five years later, he wasn't dead, he's not dying," he quipped on stage. "The little bastard, he's just not dying."
For that, the courts are making him pay some $42,000.
That would not happen in the United States. You may, or may not, agree with the court's findings - but it's a difference between the two countries and their liberties to express themselves.
It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel, in which case I'd posture they'd pursue even higher damages (but that, I'll wholeheartedly admit, is pure speculation).
Still in both cases, the public institution would have the final say in whether or not what was said should not be said.
Edit: I was healthily corrected on this point. Not libel, but slander was what I was asserting as a possibility -- in the case we were discussing I was totally incorrect.
> It would happen in the United States if the victim decided to sue for libel
This is simply false, and a bad understanding of United States libel laws. Firstly, these were verbal statements which would make them slander and not libel.
Secondly, these were _not_ false statements of fact (which is the only thing that constitutes libel or slander in the United States). Joking that the child was ugly is an opinion, which is protected by the first amendment. Joking that the child was not dead, and "wouldn't die" also isn't a statement of fact.
It's simply not factually true that the comedian would be exposed to any civil liabilities for those jokes were they made in the United States.
All that said, I agree with the vast majority of the people that those jokes were in extremely poor taste. I would encourage people not to support or listen to a comedian that mocks people in that way.
It's actually a great example of how freedom of speech is not a binary. It's possible to curtail some forms of expression, such as hate-speech, without turning the country into an autocratic regime that punishes thought crimes. Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold and you're now North Korea. Turns out that with a strong judiciary (that isn't corrupted by money and politics) it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!
> Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing
See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me.
I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society?
If I claim that red is my favorite color, but I actually prefer orange, does that I mean I get to call orange "red"?
The fact that restricting the verbal equivalent of "swinging fists into others' faces" may be a good thing doesn't mean that can be redefined as free speech, because everyone has their own idea of what these reasonable restrictions are. Free speech is free speech, even if it's in practice a bad idea.
> Except Free Speech is a Binary, and that is exactly what Canada is doing,... punishing thought crimes.
A "spoken crime" is not a "thought crime". There's no chip in your head, you're free to think whatever you like, even if you're not necessarily free to say anything you like.
You cross the line into thought crimes when you ascribe intent and presume to know the state of mind and thought process behind a given piece of speech.
Hmm, do you think there are some things you can say that would classify as an action you could be arrested for rather than an idea?
For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, offering a bribe, and threatening someone all seem like actions you could be arrested for in the USA where the only evidence is your speech (or a recording of it). Would these qualify as thought crimes to you and if so do you think there is a developed nation with free speech where they are accepted?
How about threatening violence against a member of a protected class? Is the crime worse because of that persons protected status, even if that didn’t matter to the perpetrator?
For example, I think that a country can be said to have free speech if it disallows people from promising to compensate someone in exchange for murder.
Free Speech that is restricted is no longer Free, so how can it not be binary? Either you're free to say things - including politically repugnant things - or you are not free to do so.
Are tasteless jokes really something that needs to be protected? Sure, if he was making a joke about the government being corrupt , or the over-reach of courts (ironic), I would be on your side. But are you really gonna die on this hill? You will fight for the right of comedians to insult the personal appearance of disabled people? I don't think it contributes much to the democratic discourse. And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.
Yep, its tasteless, but the alternative allow folks like you to edit what I read and eventually think. I rather deal with the filth then the sterile world of what is acceptable to you with only approved targets of derision and protest. Being in fear of every word uttered to be outside the bounds for some person who might hear would be the purest kind of horror.
Freedom of speech is there to protect the ugly not shine the widely accepted.
> And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.
Why not? Since that is the whole course of history. People don't lose rights overnight, it comes one drop at a time.
Just to point out, the long dominance of the restrictive “Clear and Present Danger” rule in US free speech analysis was ended in favor of the “inciting imminent lawless conduct” rule (which makes mere theoretically dangerous speech still protected) in case in which KKK leader was challenging a conviction for televised advocacy of “revengeance”.
I don't think most people that are happy about the rule would find the particular actor or action sympathetic; you fight for free speech not because the actor is popular or sympathetic, but because you might need it when you and your actions are not popular or sympathetic.
This is a very tough subject. I don't think it will stop being tough anytime soon.
I'm going to put on my brute hat, so I might earn some downvotes for simplicity or unpopular opinion here but I'll take a stab at it anyway:
It seems that many people often conflate what makes a right and what makes a freedom. That is, people want what they call freedom to do something, but what they mean is that they want the right to do something without penalty. Sometimes the opposite is true. As well, being free to do something doesn't mean there is no potential for incurring a penalty or tax or that you are entitled to it.
In Canada, you are free to say whatever you want. If it comes into contrast with what is socially (and subsequently legally) acceptable at the time, then you may or may not face consequences for your actions.
In Ontario you have the right to a prescribed health care plan, nobody is free to remove this from you once registered. You are free to let your card expire, at which point institutions are free to charge you appropriately[1]. It is your freedom to remain without a health card, but it's your right to obtain a new one. Just because you're free to let your free health plan expire, doesn't mean you won't necessarily face consequences for it.
This just goes back to other commenters' point, though: Canadians and Americans tend to define something like this a little differently. I also think much of the 1st world seems to be satisfied with making mistakes along the way to a more ideal solution to the issue. It's my hope that the mistakes get smaller as we go along (and the peoples' standards grow higher, so criticisms grow stronger).
[1] In my experience this has never occurred, though. Mine has expired previously, and I've never been denied or charged according to OHIP.
You can't contrast rights and freedoms when the right in question is a right to free speech. If one has a right to a freedom, and a third party enforces consequences for exercising that freedom, then one's rights are being infringed.
Well if we are talking Canada with this point, it is not a right to a freedom of speech. It's a freedom to speak whatever you may want to speak. The wording of the 1st Amendment is quite different so I can see how the interpretation would vary.
The Canadian constitution states that everyone "has the following fundamental freedoms [...] (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."
I'll pose a couple of analogies to illustrate how I'm interpreting it:
If I wanted to tell my the CEO off at the company I work for in a grotesque manner, I'm entirely free to do so, but I'd likely lose my job. If he decided to fire back at me, HR would likely intervene to resolve the issue, but not before we're cordoned off to prevent further controversy. (I realize companies aren't quite analogues of countries, I'm taking a bit of a stretch for the sake of illustration).
If I picked a stranger out of a crowd and degraded him publicly, I'm free to do that as well, but I'd probably get punched. If instead of punching me, he decided to throw similar words back and a third person intervened to arbitrate and calm the situation down -- is my freedom then being imposed upon? What if the intervening individual was a police officer or a panel of people, or a body of interested people?
I see these things (like most things outside of technical fields) as far more gradient than binary, so I maintain a pretty strong bias, I know.
In Canada, you are free to say whatever you want. If it comes into contrast with what is socially (and subsequently legally) acceptable at the time, then you may or may not face consequences for your actions.
Same as in any other country, from Switzerland to North Korea.
My claim was that Canada as no concept like the 1st amendment... Canada does not offer the same level of protection in their constitution as the US Constitution does
Canada's "Free Speech" code is much weaker, to the point that is not a Free Speech Code..
I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally.
There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.
I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.
Your speech is not free in an absolute sense anywhere; your speech is free as defined by law in your jurisdiction.
Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.
> I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment.
Since the threshold for libel in the US is higher than at common law specifically because of First Amendment restrictions, “despite the existence of” would be more accurate than “regardless of”.
(This is a minor correction; your broader point is valid.)
>>>I think you'll find if you look closely that Canada is an entirely different country than the US and the United States government cannot define free speech globally.
Pretty sure I clearly stated this fact in my comments, further at no point did I say the US could define free speech globally, in fact in this discussion it is Canada not the US attempting the define speech globally.
I was asking if Canada feels it can define Free Speech in the US, and how that would be a violation of our constitution because we have higher protections for free speech than Canada. So clearly I understand Canada is a different nation.
>>>There are many human rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the United States does not have, which include limitations on free speech when it is intended to or has a high likelihood to infringe on the rights of others.
This is actually false. If you believe that you completely misunderstand the history and purpose of the the US Constitution, and how that differs from the Charter of Rights in Canada.
The US Constitution is not a complete enumeration of rights, in fact if you read the Federalist Papers you will see a concern that the Bill of rights would lead to some people misunderstanding the purpose of the Bill of Rights, leading them to believe it was complete enumeration of rights when that was never the intention of the Founders. The US Constitution is a document that grants government power, any power not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution is a power forbidden to the federal government and is reserved for the States and the People. In contrast the Canada system of government where the government starts from a position of total power and the Charter of Rights removes some power from the government, this is a critical difference in how our governments are structured. The Charter of Rights in Canada is the total enumeration of rights for Canadian Citizens. This is the opposite approach of the US Constitution.
>>>I should add that civil courts in the US will award damages for libel to victims, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can also be charged criminally for direct threats of physical harm.
US History it riddled with bad court rulings, some of these are what you are referring to. Yes at some points in history the Supreme Court has been derelict in their support of Free Speech as required by the Constitution. True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess. That however does not invalidate my statements, far from it. In recent years the Supreme Court has been rolling back many of these Terrible Terrible rulings of the past, restoring Free Speech to its proper constitutional level.
On the topic of civil liability, I do not find awarding damages for libel to be a form of censorship, Rights come with responsibility, so you are free to libel or slander or defame, but if you cause that person actual articulable damages then you will be responsible for those damages, that is not censorship. It should be pointed out that generally speaking in order for this happen in the US you have to be making false statements of fact that you knew to be false at the time you made them... Making true factual statements is a absolute defense, a protection not found in some other nations, however I am not sure if Canada has such a defense.
>>>Before you talk further on a topic you don't understand I'd suggest actually reading our constitution and not repeating what has been told to you by other Americans on the Internet.
I understand the topic of US Constitution very well, I will admit to be less knowledgeable on Canadian law, however I have seen enough news stories, and actual cases to reach the conclusion that the US has better protections for Free Speech than Canada Does.
Your prohibition on "hate Speech" which seems to be expanding to even include calling someone the incorrect pronoun, or the fining of Comedians, and the arresting of Americans for “smuggling hate speech” on their iPad the is pretty much proof positive that Canada has lower free speech protections than the US.
Googling the phrase “smuggling hate speech on their iPad" came up with a host of links, as does the phrase "hate Speech calling someone the incorrect pronoun" (specifically wrt Canada’s Federal Bill C-16), and the fining of comedians and speakers in Canada has been covered ad nauseam in many forums, including this very thread.
He was refused and detained at the border and not criminally charged. He has no right to enter Canada and can be turned away for any reason, but right-wing extremism is as good as any. There any many first hand accounts of Canadians trying to cross into the US for the inauguration and being rejected because their political views.
The thing about 'misgendering' now being a crime is an absurd farce. The law amends the criminal code so that gender identity is protected from discrimination in the same way as birth gender, race, age and other traits with the same penalties applying. Again, did you read bill C-16 or read a blog post about it?
What do you think happens in Canada if someone says a joke in poor taste? The Canadian stasi/krypteia hops out of a van and whisks them away in the middle of the night for re-education?
I'm glad that you enjoy the political and social climate as much as you do, but we're fine over here. If you want to visit I suggest you show respect and tolerance or you may find Canadians aren't always friendly.
[270] I also find that, when Ms. Dawson was referred-to with male pronouns in the report of the occurrence on June 18, 2010, it amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. Notwithstanding that her legal name was Jeffrey, she advised the officers that she was a transsexual female and was not treated as such.
I suppose C-16 will now allow this to be called discrimination on the basis of gender, not sex. Whatever.
I wonder if it's a hate crime in Canada to claim that the problem of misgendering is not a crime and "an absurd farce". Be careful what you post :)
I am careful about what I post. You just put words in my mouth. The idea that referring to someone as the wrong pronoun accidentally could become illegal is absurd. Try to guess the gender of the next baby you see roll past in a stroller.
Also that quote is about police misconduct, not criminal charges.
I am I fact a Canadian citizen, not sure why you’d assume otherwise.
Also, I fail to see how providing a few links as context for the GPs last paragraph as the P requested should elicit such a rude and threatening response from you.
You really flipped the script, eh? Marching down a city street saying you hate an entire religion is threatening. I said intolerance won't make you many friends here, which I'm sure you've discovered.
So if I oppose all Religion, if I believe All Religion is a threat to the safety, security, and mental health of people. If I believe indoctrinating children into any religion to be a form of child abuse. And I wish to give a talk, or wish to write a book on said subject, you believe I should be barred from speaking or publishing said book in Canada as "hate speech"
It's not that binary here. You seem to believe that the law should be binary on the subject, but you have to realize that the circumstances where it would be applied may not be interpreted so.
In this circumstance I think it would come down to tone, and perceived intent. If you were to march with hateful picket signs screaming obscenities in front of a church on Sunday you might be asked to leave by the police for reasons besides hate speech.
First, you'll likely be confronted by people passing by who think you're being an asshole.
If you were renting a hall, or holding a speech at a university about your researched theories on why we should change something in our society or petitioning government and other social groups, you wouldn't have a problem (except maybe personal. Fundamentalist/Evangelist groups can get as bad here as in the US)
That's a humanist viewpoint you've described in this comment and I agree to an extent (some people truly benefit from religion and I won't judge them if they don't judge me). But many others see religious people (often of specific religions) as the enemy and not as fellow human beings oppressed by their own beliefs.
Popular, pleasant and agreeable speech doesn't need legal protection. The way Canada handles unpopular speech is simply not compatible with freedom of speech as we define it here.
That said, this particular case doesn't have much to do with hate speech and other areas where a clear difference can be seen between US and Canadian law. There are cases in the US where a publisher has been penalized simply for linking to infringed intellectual property -- notably https://w2.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20020703_eff_2600... -- and that takes away a lot of our moral authority to criticize Canada for misguided decisions like this one. If 2600 Magazine were Canadian, we would certainly have brought our own legal pressure to bear against your country to try to force you to comply with our IP laws.
your country currently has a law which criminalizes referring to a person using the incorrect given name or personal pronoun. the US supreme court recently affirmed that even hateful statements which are clearly abhorrent and of no inherent value are protected. it is simply a matter of optimization for different things - Canada optimizes for its idea of the most civil possible discourse, and takes it to an extreme. The US optimizes for its idea of minimal obstructions to expression, and takes it to an extreme.
it is this difference in definitions of protected speech that causes people from the US to attack Canada for the current state of free speech, I think.
Part I of the Constitution of Canada (1982) is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 1 of the Charter outlines that these Rights and Freedoms may have reasonable limits placed upon them in accordance with the principles of a free and democratic society.
This alone - reading each constitution - demonstrates the fundamental difference in approach that each country's legal system takes to its freedoms.
Yes! Thanks. It was Part 1, Section 2 I was referring to initially and mixed my terms.
I think your takeaway is quite true. Personally, I don't think we've yet resolved which approach is better, though as you can probably tell by my other comments I'm leaning toward Canada's. That's open to change, but not yet.
The Charter legalized prostitution, gay marriage, abortions, and assisted suicide. It also banned discrimination against homosexuals, extraditing people to countries where they'll be tortured, and warrantless searches of your house. And it recognized that Aboriginals had title to their land. But yeah, you're right, it's pretty weak. Section 33 has been used once in it's 35 year history, so I see your point.
While I generally agree with you, it is interesting to note that the notwithstanding clause was specifically used to target free speech. And not just a little bit of speech, but any English on signage in Quebec (which, if I recall, must be written more prominently in French than in English).
If Google doesn't remove this Canadian website from global searches, Canada can force Google to leave the Canadian market and even block google.com in Canada. This - of course - will not happen any time soon...
Google could comply with the Canadian court. I hope someone in the US sues them for it. Deliberately removing a site from US searches, or from searches hosted in the US is clearly an abuse of its position and unlawful. And then we can have the US Supreme Court decide whether or not the US Constitution applies to Google, or if Iran's does.
Regressive is an interesting choice of wording. Freedoms, as always, are relative -- the classic your right to swing your fist ends at my nose sort of thing. Canada has progressive notions of free speech that fully enables the overwhelming majority of speech, encoded in Charter of Rights. But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, you can't incite hate in Canada. Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection.
Actually you can, the Secret Service will investigate to determine if it a "True Threat" but the number of people actually prosecuted for threatening the president is exceeding low, don't confuse the Secret Service Investigation with a suppression of speech.
>Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection.
Speech that is popular and not offensive does not need protection int eh first place
Fun fact: the "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument came from a Supreme Court justice explaining why it was okay to imprison people for publishing pamphlets arguing against the WW1 draft. It's not really a great choice of allusion when you're trying to convince others that you're big on free speech.
The judge later regretted the choice and said so publicly. He'd reverse that choice in a later ruling and join the minority opinion. There's a good Wikipedia article on this.
> But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater
This is example comes from dubious (in terms of it's accuracy in reflecting even the then-current state of Constitutional law) dicta in a since-overturned case upholding suppression of core political speech.
Utterly irrelevant, though this is the copy/paste regurgitated reply whenever it's mentioned.
Go yell fire in a theater right now. You will be hit with a variety of fun charges. Just as you have absolutely no right to announce threats against other persons, most defended being the president or any other politician.
> Go yell fire in a theater right now. You will be charge with a variety of fun charges.
Most likely, you'll just be thrown out of the theater.
If you actually dircectly provoke a riot by doing that, then you'll be subject to criminal sanction. Without inciting imminent lawless action, it's protected speech.
> All speech has limits.
Free speech has limits, but the “fire in a crowded theater” example (and the “clear and present danger” rule it came along with) is not an valid example of the limits (or the operative rule).
Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.