Implicit Social Network: The Bill of Rights Is Notable for What It Doesn't Define

We contemplate two converging phenomena - a global revolution in demcracy - from the US to the Middle East and now even Russia - as well as the explosive growth of social media. They are convergent because they both stimulate and draw support from each other.

Given the political and economic impact of these forces, it is worth noting some historical precedents that have stood the test of time. The US Bill of Rights is one such. It both codifies and provides a mechanism for adaptation to changes in circumstances, though of sufficient complexity that any alterations considered must build comprehensive support to succeed. One element of that concept's success was the bill's framers' decision not to overly define what factors should determine future considerations.

Whether for-profit social networks, democratic governments or grass-roots movements of uncertain provenance and fate, the benefits of trusting in such communities to optimally determine future directions is worth considering. As businesses, governments and citizens around the world take a more active posture regarding their economic and political futures, remembering that one can not anticipate the unknown with great accuracy is useful. The Bill of Rights is 220 years old today - and still working pretty well. JL

Jonathan Salem Baskin comments in Histories of Social Media:

Today in history a community was defined by what it wasn’t.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified on this day in 1791, the first ten amendments were added to the American Constitution (the Constitution having been adopted only four years earlier). Principled and quite heated debate had gone on for just over nine months, and involved both the Founding Fathers (many of whom were still having trouble with the Constitution) and the rising stars of the next generation of American governance.
Twelve amendments were originally under consideration, but the one about regulating raises for members of Congress didn’t make the cut (it would later be ratified as the 27th Amendment in 1992).

What’s notable about the Bill of Rights is that it mostly defines who can’t do what, or what can’t happen to whom. It informs the community with authority by denying such power, assigning limits to its institutional behavior as a way to affirm the rights of individuals. What the community will not be is explicit; what it will do, how it will function, what it will produce, and where it will go are implicit in the bill. Like the Constitution, it looks to the past to try and impede its repeat, which has led to its additional amendments, dictated by the lessons of ongoing experience.

It succeeds as an experiment in social experience because it leaves future experience utterly unscripted.