Isn't suicide discussion (except encouragement) supposed to be protected by the right to free speech?

[UtopianElephant]

It seems to me that general discussion and information on the topic should be under the protection of the 1st Amendment (in the U.S), and whatever constitutional clauses of countries that have similar free speech rights.

Information about methods should be covered under free speech rights and expression, as well.

I completely understand that people in power can bend and narrate the rules however they see fit, but that doesn't mean that our rights are not protected and enforceable, since they are laid out and do exist. So, considering this, shouldn't it be fairly easy to find ways to legally protect the existence of controversial websites similar to S/S, as well as users participating in them?

Another interesting question for me is why there have been no noticeable legal cases, lawsuits, etc from regular citizens or rights-groups fighting people like pro-lifers who are outraged by the existence of suicide discussion online. Also, the fact that there is a complete absence of both academic and public (pro-choice) discourse of the topic in newspapers, magazines, even advertisements and other means of communication.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Someone123]

It's a grey area what encouragement is I think, but it's true you should be able to discuss this topic.

 

[Doctors HATE them]

It seems to me that general discussion and information on the topic should be under the protection of the 1st Amendment (in the U.S), and whatever constitutional clauses of countries that have similar free speech rights.

Information about methods should be covered under free speech rights and expression, as well.

I completely understand that people in power can bend and narrate the rules however they see fit, but that doesn't mean that our rights are not protected and enforceable, since they are laid out and do exist. So, considering this, shouldn't it be fairly easy to find ways to legally protect the existence of controversial websites similar to S/S, as well as users participating in them?

Another interesting question for me is why there have been no noticeable legal cases, lawsuits, etc from regular citizens or rights-groups fighting people like pro-lifers who are outraged by the existence of suicide discussion online. Also, the fact that there is a complete absence of both academic and public (pro-choice) discourse of the topic in newspapers, magazines, even advertisements and other means of communication.

Thank you for reading.

I disagree that our right of free speech can be enforced. Rights are more like government assigned privileges that can be taken away at any time. If people or government bodies don't want free speech to include discussion of suicide, then they can just ignore the constitution and do it. Idk if I'm explaining myself well enough but basically "rights" are really only enforced by the people and if the government wants to take one away the only thing stopping them is fear of public outcry. Pro-choicers are the minority though, so I doubt we'd have any impact on the discussion of whether we should be allowed to talk about this or not.

 

[Musketeer]

I disagree that our right of free speech can be enforced. Rights are more like government assigned privileges that can be taken away at any time. If people or government bodies don't want free speech to include discussion of suicide, then they can just ignore the constitution and do it. Idk if I'm explaining myself well enough but basically "rights" are really only enforced by the people and if the government wants to take one away the only thing stopping them is fear of public outcry. Pro-choicers are the minority though, so I doubt we'd have any impact on the discussion of whether we should be allowed to talk about this or not.

That's where your 2nd amendment rights come in.

 

[Doctors HATE them]

That's where your 2nd amendment rights come in.

No offense but I think that armed protesting is a really bad idea. Easy way to get imprisoned and do nothing for the pro-choice cause. Actually you might do harm by making us look like crazy killers who just want to push people to suicide.
Imo the best thing we can do is just share our experiences and make people sympathize with us. If they understand how hard it is for us to just be alive then I think they'd be more inclined to help us maintain our rights
Everyone is against us and violent displays will only make them more against us.

 

[Samsal112]

As a History teacher, it is because your individual rights end when someone else's begins. What I mean, is that your rights protected under the Bill of Rights, are only done so when you are not putting someone else in danger. Congress isn't going to stop you from having a suicide conversation with your friend(s). However, because this is a website where all people, including those under age visit, Congress can step in when they feel it is harmful to citizens. I am not a prolifer, I am just telling you from a historical and government standpoint that is why Congress can make laws to impede on this site. It is also not a thing of the government giving "privileges." These Rights are considered unalienable, but anytime your rights affect another negatively, then your rights end.

And why would people present a lawsuit on pro-lifers? You can't sue someone for trying to make a law or for protesting a belief that you stand for, and as much as we all here believe that suicide should be legal, no other person is fighting to allow a loved one to end their life when they see fit. The Constitution has nothing in there about ending life because you don't want to live anymore. It is unprecedented, and today, people are really questioning what it means to be alive and how precious life is. There have obviously been conversations about ending life since Terri Schiavo's case. This is why some countries are allowing euthanasia, but with strict guidelines. In America, you can end your life if you have a terminal illness like cancer (I believe this is only in some states).

Either way, my point is that it does not violate the first amendment to shut this site down or to regulate it.

 

[Musketeer]

No offense but I think that armed protesting is a really bad idea. Easy way to get imprisoned and do nothing for the pro-choice cause. Actually you might do harm by making us look like crazy killers who just want to push people to suicide.
Imo the best thing we can do is just share our experiences and make people sympathize with us. If they understand how hard it is for us to just be alive then I think they'd be more inclined to help us maintain our rights
Everyone is against us and violent displays will only make them more against us.

I'm inclined to agree, but i do believe pro-lifers will escelate these kinds of things and abuse those who engage in it. Those unwilling to defend their rights with force will be subjugated by those who want to take their rights by force. not saying this solution needs to be implemented now, but when it comes to them abusing me using the force of the state i will fight back, and everyone should be prepared for that. I understand this is a controversial stance to take, and it has the potential to set back the movement, knowing when to use force will be the thing that allows us to secure our rights.

 

[UtopianElephant]

I disagree that our right of free speech can be enforced. Rights are more like government assigned privileges that can be taken away at any time. If people or government bodies don't want free speech to include discussion of suicide, then they can just ignore the constitution and do it. Idk if I'm explaining myself well enough but basically "rights" are really only enforced by the people and if the government wants to take one away the only thing stopping them is fear of public outcry. Pro-choicers are the minority though, so I doubt we'd have any impact on the discussion of whether we should be allowed to talk about this or not.

"I disagree that our right of free speech can be enforced. Rights are more like government assigned privileges that can be taken away at any time. If people or government bodies don't want free speech to include discussion of suicide, then they can just ignore the constitution and do it."

There is validity to this argument, it seems to me. Rights are definitely not a straightforward thing and can be problematic. For example, if there was a straightforward way to protect the right to a speedy and fair trial, or to not be a witness against yourself, we would not have so many people sitting in jails, sometimes for many months, without having been given a trial. People would never be arrested for lawful exercise of 1st Amendment at public protests or rallies. And any American would be easily able to purchase a gun without any background checks, as was seemingly possible for most of American history.

But to not have the right whether to live or die is probably the worst infringement on individual rights, and is an ethical abomination by society.

Thank you for the contribution.

That's where your 2nd amendment rights come in.

"That's where your 2nd amendment rights come in."

I don't think the 2nd Amendment means what you think it does. If it did, any American would easily be able to own firearms without any permission, join an independent "milita" and whatever have you, as was possible right after the War of Independence.

As a History teacher, it is because your individual rights end when someone else's begins. What I mean, is that your rights protected under the Bill of Rights, are only done so when you are not putting someone else in danger. Congress isn't going to stop you from having a suicide conversation with your friend(s). However, because this is a website where all people, including those under age visit, Congress can step in when they feel it is harmful to citizens. I am not a prolifer, I am just telling you from a historical and government standpoint that is why Congress can make laws to impede on this site. It is also not a thing of the government giving "privileges." These Rights are considered unalienable, but anytime your rights affect another negatively, then your rights end.

And why would people present a lawsuit on pro-lifers? You can't sue someone for trying to make a law or for protesting a belief that you stand for, and as much as we all here believe that suicide should be legal, no other person is fighting to allow a loved one to end their life when they see fit. The Constitution has nothing in there about ending life because you don't want to live anymore. It is unprecedented, and today, people are really questioning what it means to be alive and how precious life is. There have obviously been conversations about ending life since Terri Schiavo's case. This is why some countries are allowing euthanasia, but with strict guidelines. In America, you can end your life if you have a terminal illness like cancer (I believe this is only in some states).

Either way, my point is that it does not violate the first amendment to shut this site down or to regulate it.

You have to remember that the Bill of Rights mentions that it doesn't limit individual rights to only the 10 rights listed in the BOR. The right of the individual to decide to die is perfectly consistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the motto of this country, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Right to Life implies the right to reject such right; it can never become an obligation if it is to remain a right. Suicide prevention with no exceptions is totalitarian in its spirit, and would go against the principles of the constitution and the principles on which this country was founded. Moreover, state suicide prevention is counter to the most basic principles of human decency.

I'm not saying that suicide discussion or a site like this be off limits to government regulation; they very well may have a right/ duty to monitor such things to ensure the rights of minors are not being violated, etc, but it is a fairly complex topic. But I would disagree with your view that it wouldn't violate individual rights for government to shut down sites or heavily restrict other public discourse. I think its limits are to ensure that minors are not being abused or exploited or coerced (which you would not see on a site like this, as such content would be taken down almost immediately). Further, I'm not sure that minors should not be allowed to discuss suicide online, but do think that they (or anyone else) should NOT be coerced or tricked into doing anything they are not comfortable with.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

It is the people who bestow legitimacy upon any governmental system, whether it is in the US under the rules enshrined in the Constitution, or in a theocracy such as Iran. When enough people decide to stop playing along, this is the precursor of governments being toppled. It doesn't take all of the people to bring down a government. What do you think would have happened on January 6th at the US Capital had 5,000,00 protestors descended on the grounds that day? The greatest organizing mechanism the world has ever imagined is already out of the bag and that tool is the Internet. As rights become more and more limited, and even taken away, it is only a matter of time before enough people will stop playing along.

 

[UtopianElephant]

It is the people who bestow legitimacy upon any governmental system, whether it is in the US under the rules enshrined in the Constitution, or in a theocracy such as Iran. When enough people decide to stop playing along, this is the precursor of governments being toppled. It doesn't take all of the people to bring down a government. What do you think would have happened on January 6th at the US Capital had 5,000,00 protestors descended on the grounds that day? The greatest organizing mechanism the world has ever imagined is already out of the bag and that tool is the Internet. As rights become more and more limited, and even taken away, it is only a matter of time before enough people will stop playing along.

Thanks for your view, but that does sound a bit too optimistic to me. Looking at humans objectively and trying to account for biases, it becomes pretty obvious that most people are pretty dull-minded and indolent philosophically and of spirit. While I can't say I know what would happen if the rights-valuing minority would be pushed in this country, I am pessimistic on that as well, because if the military goes against them, most of these people will either cower or become defeated pretty soon. This is simply because of an asymmetry of weapons and power. There is no telling what kind of complexity would happen if there is a military-civilan conflict or something resembling a civil war, but none of them say that there would be a human rights victory even in the best outcome of any such conflicts. Most people simply don't seem to give a shit about basic rights and principles, including building a better society which reduces pains and struggles for all citizens, and preserves basic, individual rights.

It is the people who bestow legitimacy upon any governmental system, whether it is in the US under the rules enshrined in the Constitution, or in a theocracy such as Iran. When enough people decide to stop playing along, this is the precursor of governments being toppled. It doesn't take all of the people to bring down a government. What do you think would have happened on January 6th at the US Capital had 5,000,00 protestors descended on the grounds that day? The greatest organizing mechanism the world has ever imagined is already out of the bag and that tool is the Internet. As rights become more and more limited, and even taken away, it is only a matter of time before enough people will stop playing along.

Thanks for your view, but that does sound a bit too optimistic to me. Looking at humans objectively and trying to account for biases, it becomes pretty obvious that most people are pretty dull-minded and indolent philosophically and of spirit. While I can't say I know what would happen if the rights-valuing minority would be pushed in this country, I am pessimistic on that as well, because if the military goes against them, most of these people will either cower or become defeated pretty soon. This is simply because of an asymmetry of weapons and power. There is no telling what kind of complexity would happen if there is a military-civilan conflict or something resembling a civil war, but none of them say that there would be a human rights victory even in the best outcome of any such conflicts. Most people simply don't seem to give a shit about basic rights and principles, including building a better society which reduces pains and struggles for all citizens, and preserves basic, individual rights.

 

[Pluto]

I'm not aware of any effort to suppress general information about suicide methods. Academic research and basic method information is uncensored.

Open attempts at coercing others to CTB is against the law just as shouting fire in a crowded theatre can be. I'm not aware of any reasonable movement that opposes this sort of law, either.

General discussion amongst suicidal people falls smack bang in the grey area. Being a complex, nuanced topic that happens to be emotionally charged, it will forever divide opinions, much like other pro-choice vs. pro-life debates that I could name. If governments drift towards authoritarianism, we will see fundamentalist Christians enforce their views on others. Otherwise, the sheer messiness of the debate will make definitive change from the status quo difficult to implement.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

While I can't say I know what would happen if the rights-valuing minority would be pushed in this country, I am pessimistic on that as well, because if the military goes against them, most of these people will either cower or become defeated pretty soon.

First, I'm really speaking of when some critical mass is reached. Also, I truly believe it's a question of when, and not if, this scenario will happen. I don't believe the military aspect is all that big of a deal, nor is policing, for when a large enough amount of people rise up to this endeavor, no doubt many of those in the rise-up will be the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, etc of those in the military and police, which will effectively quash much of the subduing effect from militaristic intervention, as it would be very difficult to shoot family members. It's coming. The signs are all around us. I have no idea as to when. I know I'll be long into my nothingness state by then. It is going to happen, though. History shows it will happen. The US is a very young country relative to most other countries. An imperfect piece of paper is not enough to quash the way of the universe, which is that everything, eventually, moves toward entropy. Everything can only really move in one direction. Life to death. Beginning to end. Order to disorder. Of course, others have differing views.

 

[UtopianElephant]

First, I'm really speaking of when some critical mass is reached. Also, I truly believe it's a question of when, and not if, this scenario will happen. I don't believe the military aspect is all that big of a deal, nor is policing, for when a large enough amount of people rise up to this endeavor, no doubt many of those in the rise-up will be the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, etc of those in the military and police, which will effectively quash much of the subduing effect from militaristic intervention, as it would be very difficult to shoot family members. It's coming. The signs are all around us. I have no idea as to when. I know I'll be long into my nothingness state by then. It is going to happen, though. History shows it will happen. The US is a very young country relative to most other countries. An imperfect piece of paper is not enough to quash the way of the universe, which is that everything, eventually, moves toward entropy. Everything can only really move in one direction. Life to death. Beginning to end. Order to disorder. Of course, others have differing views.

Okay, but you seem to present contradictory views here. First, that you expect Americans to rise up to oppression. Second, that you expect eventual disorder, entropy, death, etc.

Wouldn't these two contradict one another, in that the first is optimistic / expects a positive result, and the second is inherently pessimistic / negative?

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Okay, but you seem to present contradictory views here. First, that you expect Americans to rise up to oppression. Second, that you expect eventual disorder, entropy, death, etc.

Wouldn't these two contradict one another, in that the first is optimistic / expects a positive result, and the second is inherently pessimistic / negative?

I don't see the contradiction here. Any rise-up against oppression, as you say, is going to result in disorder and chaos of some sort, and, yes, plenty of death. It may not even be the result of some type of oppression. It could be the result of water wars, which, I guess, is some form of oppression, but not in the traditional sense. Are you saying that people rising-up is optimistic along with its expectant result of a success a positive attribute? That may be true for small forms of change, whereby the government responds to the will of the people. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the outright overthrow and subsequent collapse of society that will follow, at least for some amount of time. Establishing governance is difficult. Establishing governance deemed legitimate by the people is much harder. I don't really want to get into a great philosophical debate. All I'm saying is that society, in general, has become much more complex than in it used to be, and with this increase in complexity, it becomes much more difficult to govern the people. History has clearly shown, time and time again, that no societies, whether countries, empires, what have you, last forever and that it is inevitable for their eventual collapse. Eventually, a new society of some sort, with new rules, will emerge to take its place. I guess what it really comes down to is that humankind, or man, is incapable of making anything that can last forever. The way of the universe will not allow it. I guess my views are pessimistic, but after all, I am on a suicide forum. If I had 10 trillion dollars, I would bet every single cent that the US will someday collapse. I have no idea when. It may be next year, 5 years from now, 20 years from now, or a hundred years from now. I say it's inevitable. Change is inevitable. I believe this for any man-created structure of governance, including other country's governments. It all started as, basically, chaos at one point in time. I don't think it's that big of a leap to think it will, eventually, devolve back into it's beginnings.

 

[UtopianElephant]

I don't see the contradiction here. Any rise-up against oppression, as you say, is going to result in disorder and chaos of some sort, and, yes, plenty of death. It may not even be the result of some type of oppression. It could be the result of water wars, which, I guess, is some form of oppression, but not in the traditional sense. Are you saying that people rising-up is optimistic along with its expectant result of a success a positive attribute? That may be true for small forms of change, whereby the government responds to the will of the people. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the outright overthrow and subsequent collapse of society that will follow, at least for some amount of time. Establishing governance is difficult. Establishing governance deemed legitimate by the people is much harder. I don't really want to get into a great philosophical debate. All I'm saying is that society, in general, has become much more complex than in it used to be, and with this increase in complexity, it becomes much more difficult to govern the people. History has clearly shown, time and time again, that no societies, whether countries, empires, what have you, last forever and that it is inevitable for their eventual collapse. Eventually, a new society of some sort, with new rules, will emerge to take its place. I guess what it really comes down to is that humankind, or man, is incapable of making anything that can last forever. The way of the universe will not allow it. I guess my views are pessimistic, but after all, I am on a suicide forum. If I had 10 trillion dollars, I would bet every single cent that the US will someday collapse. I have no idea when. It may be next year, 5 years from now, 20 years from now, or a hundred years from now. I say it's inevitable. Change is inevitable. I believe this for any man-created structure of governance, including other country's governments. It all started as, basically, chaos at one point in time. I don't think it's that big of a leap to think it will, eventually, devolve back into it's beginnings.

Yeah, I agree in many ways. It does not seem that you expect anything good to come from any revolutions or change of government, and I would agree with you there. I'm even more skeptical and pessimistic in the regard to "the will of the people" as it seems to me that is a crock of shit, because (and I'm sure you will agree here), Americans in general are more polarized and divided than ever. There are just factions and splintered groups with their own values, and there is no national unity in any big, common values. One group of Americans values its own values and rights and does not care for other people's rights. That seems to be more of a human nature problem, than a specifically American problem. Hence, I don't expect anything good or better to come with any rebellions, revolutions or anything like that.

 

[LookingOverTheEdge]

"Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes." - Terry Pratchett

I just wanted to add that :).

 

[locked*n*loaded]

.................as it seems to me that is a crock of shit, because (and I'm sure you will agree here), Americans in general are more polarized and divided than ever.

Agree with you 100%. Also, usually, when something like a rebellion happens, as has been demonstrated in many other countries, there is utter chaos for many years thereafter, and after even newly formed governments have little legitimacy with the people. Who knows? Maybe all the world's problems will end up getting solved by several messiahs who all show up at the same time in all countries and straighten everything out. I still believe the US is headed for a day of reckoning sometime off in the future, and I bet it won't be pretty.

 

[Musketeer]

"I disagree that our right of free speech can be enforced. Rights are more like government assigned privileges that can be taken away at any time. If people or government bodies don't want free speech to include discussion of suicide, then they can just ignore the constitution and do it."

There is validity to this argument, it seems to me. Rights are definitely not a straightforward thing and can be problematic. For example, if there was a straightforward way to protect the right to a speedy and fair trial, or to not be a witness against yourself, we would not have so many people sitting in jails, sometimes for many months, without having been given a trial. People would never be arrested for lawful exercise of 1st Amendment at public protests or rallies. And any American would be easily able to purchase a gun without any background checks, as was seemingly possible for most of American history.

But to not have the right whether to live or die is probably the worst infringement on individual rights, and is an ethical abomination by society.

Thank you for the contribution.







"That's where your 2nd amendment rights come in."

I don't think the 2nd Amendment means what you think it does. If it did, any American would easily be able to own firearms without any permission, join an independent "milita" and whatever have you, as was possible right after the War of Independence.










You have to remember that the Bill of Rights mentions that it doesn't limit individual rights to only the 10 rights listed in the BOR. The right of the individual to decide to die is perfectly consistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the motto of this country, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Right to Life implies the right to reject such right; it can never become an obligation if it is to remain a right. Suicide prevention with no exceptions is totalitarian in its spirit, and would go against the principles of the constitution and the principles on which this country was founded. Moreover, state suicide prevention is counter to the most basic principles of human decency.

I'm not saying that suicide discussion or a site like this be off limits to government regulation; they very well may have a right/ duty to monitor such things to ensure the rights of minors are not being violated, etc, but it is a fairly complex topic. But I would disagree with your view that it wouldn't violate individual rights for government to shut down sites or heavily restrict other public discourse. I think its limits are to ensure that minors are not being abused or exploited or coerced (which you would not see on a site like this, as such content would be taken down almost immediately). Further, I'm not sure that minors should not be allowed to discuss suicide online, but do think that they (or anyone else) should NOT be coerced or tricked into doing anything they are not comfortable with.

The courts have been pretty pro 2nd amendment as of late and dc v. Hellar blows all of the you can only own firearms they were available at the founding or of the water. The government can't restrict firearms in common use. After been alot of states also made up restrictions that violate bruen. These stages have no legitimacy and need to be requested with force is need be.
Edit: spelling and grammar

 

[UtopianElephant]

The courts have been pretty pro 2nd amendment as of late and dc v. Hellar blows all of the you can only own firearms they were available at the founding or of the water. The government can't restrict firearms in common use. After been alot of states also made up restrictions that violate bruen. These stages have no legitimacy and need to be requested with force is need be.
Edit: spelling and grammar

"can't restrict firearms in common use. After been alot of states also made up restrictions that violate bruen."

But the reality is that the Second Amendment has been restricted since the 1930s, before which any American could buy weapons without any approval or permission. Nowadays, many citizens are unable to own guns because there is a background check required. So the 2nd Amendment itself doesn't mean much if you don't meet certain criteria.

 

[Musketeer]

"can't restrict firearms in common use. After been alot of states also made up restrictions that violate bruen."

But the reality is that the Second Amendment has been restricted since the 1930s, before which any American could buy weapons without any approval or permission. Nowadays, many citizens are unable to own guns because there is a background check required. So the 2nd Amendment itself doesn't mean much if you don't meet certain criteria.

and I believe the courts will strip a lot of that away as well, not to mention you can always obtain firearms on the black market. The Italian partisans that fought of moussolini in WWII for example.

 

[UtopianElephant]

and I believe the courts will strip a lot of that away as well, not to mention you can always obtain firearms on the black market. The Italian partisans that fought of moussolini in WWII for example.

"not to mention you can always obtain firearms on the black market."

Actually, recently I made another thread where users broached this topic, and almost no one in this community thought that it was easy to do. Most who replied were very unsure about how to go about doing that. Certainly it is possible to do, but so is becoming a millionaire or the president.

 

[UKscotty]

It's protected as free speech here in the UK. I suspect the same is true in the US.

 

[Ta555]

In the end it all boils down to them removing as much of your autonomy as possible. Your life is YOURS and you should be able to decide what to do with it, whether to continue living or not. That's it.

Unfortunately, the government, society, other institutions don't want people to believe this. An obsession with 'sanctity of life' and the religious notion that your life was given to you by someone else means that the only acceptable belief is that life has to continue no matter what, and ending it, for any reason, is a grave sin. This is absolute bullshit. Human life is not sacred. Not anymore than any animal's or insect's life. Our life and our brains are more complex, but we are not more sacred or important.

At the end of the day, it's a question of autonomy. We are not allowed to take our life into our own hands.

 

[UtopianElephant]

In the end it all boils down to them removing as much of your autonomy as possible. Your life is YOURS and you should be able to decide what to do with it, whether to continue living or not. That's it.

Unfortunately, the government, society, other institutions don't want people to believe this. An obsession with 'sanctity of life' and the religious notion that your life was given to you by someone else means that the only acceptable belief is that life has to continue no matter what, and ending it, for any reason, is a grave sin. This is absolute bullshit. Human life is not sacred. Not anymore than any animal's or insect's life. Our life and our brains are more complex, but we are not more sacred or important.

At the end of the day, it's a question of autonomy. We are not allowed to take our life into our own hands.

Fully agree with you there. Human intelligence, autonomy and agency have orders of magnitude more moral weight than some socially cultivated and vague sanctity of life beliefs.

 

[Winterreise]

A good system protects itself, first and foremost. Protects against abuse of power. Against sudden overturns. It acommadates the frailty of humanity. Has corrective mechanisms, where peoples power is limited.