This is getting ridiculous. There is no such thing as "absolute, except when...." Either it's absolute or it's not. If you have laws and due process of the law that just may, I don't know, limit your rights...then rights aren't absolute.
Rights are conditional. You have rights to do this or that as outlined in documents, but you must act in accordance to the law or your rights are revoked or otherwise "impinged." There are excpetions, many of which would be considered "natural laws," which include such things as the right to life and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and all that, but even then you still have nations who use capital punishment.
So what are we getting at here, ultimately?
We have rights, but we also have laws. Laws trump rights?
Okay, so let me get this straight (I'm not being obtuse):
- Rights are absolute except when they are limited, revoked, or otherwise "impinged" by the due process of the law?
Again, do we all agree on what the word
absolute means?
---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------
Let me recontextualize.
Given that rights are absolute,
but those rights can be taken away, if there could be a law instituted that put a cap or a ban on corporate/union contributions to political parties or the purchasing of political ads during campaigns, would this not indicate that a corporation's freedom of speech is not infringed? They're have the right to exercise free speech, but they would have their right removed or would otherwise be penalized by exercising it outside of the law.
Does this make sense?