There might be some nuances of interpretation, but people in the UK have every right granted under the first amendment. We have an established religion yes, but we still have freedom of religion. That’s really the only significant caveat I can think of.
Every persons right is another person’s responsibility. If you have the right to free speech, I have the responsibility to tolerate you exercising it. If I have the right to drive a car, you have to tolerate the noise and pollution. We all bear the costs of paying for government and services such as the police and judiciary that protect and guarantee our rights.
There are clear well exercised mechanisms for amending the US constitution. Just saying it’s your right and you feel no obligation to justify it, is no good argument for others to continue granting it if they feel the cost is too high.
> There might be some nuances of interpretation, but people in the UK have every right granted under the first amendment. We have an established religion yes, but we still have freedom of religion. That’s really the only significant caveat I can think of.
Well it's clear from this that you don't understand the US first amendment. Firstly, people in the UK are regularly investigated by the police and often convicted in criminal court for saying or publishing "grossly offensive" things. This kind of thing is absolutely impossible in the US. Secondly, and more subtly, no rights are granted by the first amendment. It just sets the limits of what the government can do.
> Every persons right is another person’s responsibility. If you have the right to free speech, I have the responsibility to tolerate you exercising it
OK, if that's all you meant by saying that rights come with responsibilities, fine. That is just restating a right as a responsibility. So if I have the right to own a gun, then I have the responsibility to tolerate you owning a gun. OK. But I'm not sure how this helps your argument at all.
> Just saying it’s your right and you feel no obligation to justify it, is no good argument for others to continue granting it if they feel the cost is too high.
But I'm not asking anyone to grant me anything. You're still taking the position that the default situation is that I need permission. What I've been trying to explain to you is that that's only how it works everywhere else. In the US, it works the other way around. If you really can't get past the idea of people "granting" rights, then maybe you can think of it like this: Americas gun owners haven't granted anyone the right to interfere with their guns. You think they should? Then you justify it.
Every persons right is another person’s responsibility. If you have the right to free speech, I have the responsibility to tolerate you exercising it. If I have the right to drive a car, you have to tolerate the noise and pollution. We all bear the costs of paying for government and services such as the police and judiciary that protect and guarantee our rights.
There are clear well exercised mechanisms for amending the US constitution. Just saying it’s your right and you feel no obligation to justify it, is no good argument for others to continue granting it if they feel the cost is too high.