A joke that makes you think:

[originalpckelly]

"Incidentally, this led to a famous Radio Yerevan joke: Someone asked Armenian Radio: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech. Armenian Radio answered: In principle yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech."

It was under the section "Façade Constitutions" in a Wikipedia article. It makes you think about all the protesters in America who are either arrested or locked up in "free speech zones." Is the US Constitution becoming a facade constitution?

Italian political theorist Giovanni Sartori noted the existence of national constitutions which are a façade for authoritarian sources of power. While such documents may express respect for human rights or establish an independent judiciary, they may be ignored when the government feels threatened or entirely dishonoured in practice. An extreme example was the Constitution of the Soviet Union that on paper supported freedom of assembly or freedom of speech; however, citizens who acted accordingly were summarily imprisoned. (Incidentally, this led to a famous Radio Yerevan joke: Someone asked Armenian Radio: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR? Both guarantee freedom of speech. Armenian Radio answered: In principle yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech). The example demonstrates that the protections and benefits of a constitution are provided less through its written terms, but more through deference by government and society to its principles.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Should there be freedom (of speech) for those who can't give a

speech without a teleprompter?? I'm just sayin'.