The accuracy / inaccuracy of the statement would definitely be related to one's definition of good and bad.

So many things wrong with this quote on its face, makes the whole quote a lie. By example; the “democracy” that Franklin ruled over was diabolically opposed to the de jure Constitutional Republic with guaranteed inalienable rights and liberty at “the of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). A democracy is totalitarianism by the many that is absolutely contrary to inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s within a republican format. A democracy is antithetical to a God that endows self discipline. Again, rulers in a democracy only represent tyrannical masters and not individuals (each and every / any and all) that rule themselves. My above stars for the accuracy is found within a subtlety hidden in side the whole. By way of illustration; Liberty is kept by men and women who are strong and self-reliant, and possessed of such wisdom as God gives mankind -- men and women who are just, and understanding, and generous to others -- men and women who are capable of disciplining themselves.

In context, a good start to a much larger list.

I like it a lot. Depending on the definition of "race", determines the accuracy of the statement.

An accurate list to start with. Additionally, things that are destroying America are; A varying philosophy of “legal positivism” replacing the Constitutional “laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). ALSO, a secular religion’s enslaving enforcement of theological dogma. By example; healing the sick, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the naked, financing the indecent, etc. ALSO, destroying America is the government is the new god replacing any/all otherwise recognized. ALSO, America is being destroyed (maybe already there) by: compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licensing, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, etc.), and a lack of recognition of inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law. ETC., ETC., ETC.

Not shooting the messenger, the first sentence is a theological facade to legitimize future illegitimacies. The “press” is in fact, nothing more than an extended expression of the individual’s inalienable right and liberty at nature’s law. The second sentence is accurate enough while attempting to hide the first sentence’s misdirection / misinformation / ultimate lie. “Responsibility” ? ? ? (“The obligation to answer for an act done, and to repair any injury it may have caused.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)). Again, another good sounding word salad that does not fit. “Duty to prevent” ? ? ? A duty to prevent, is an action that entails liability. That would mean each time the “press” did not prevent the government from deceiving the people (define, the people), the press would be financially, civilly, criminally or otherwise “responsible”. It is a noble endeavor for a free press to accurately report that which has transpired (certain secrets, of politicians, concerning the public, etc.). BUT, how is the immaterial operation supposed to prevent each infraction?

Sillik, on its face, your statement is more accurate than not. Your here agenda of lies fails to point out who the mentally deranged are; by example the socialists (communists, fascists, woke and people with your derangement).

What IS, a "right" to be free. Rights are inalienable, inherent in the being as a faculty of birth / existence. 

Liberty is; “The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

Liberty is the “exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. Liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st ed.).

Clarifying original fact, nature’s law intent, and de jure jurisprudence: liberty is; “The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 5th ed.)

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule.” (John Locke - second most quoted source for creation of the Constitution)

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ⋯ and is regarded as inalienable.” (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987).

“In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism - including, of course legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?” (Frederic Bastiat)

Liberty, under “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence) – nature’s law, is the state of exercising all inalienable rights. “All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” (George Mason)

“Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint; the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have.” (Daniel Webster)

”For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:13)

“Where liberty is, there is my country” (Benjamin Franklin).

"we have a right to be free" That inalienable right include the free exercise of liberty ! ! !

Legally define right so the manifestation will be consistent. By example; a human "right", a "right to life", a "right" to keep and bear arms, etc. all have a "right" as a basis. What is the singular definition of "right"? JoW from Utah stated a blatant accuracy.

Waffler, WHAT? Again you follow an admonition of one of your gods (Lenin) "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" I NEVER said: the problem with America is too many opinions. I may have said something to the effect that there is an execution of usurpations, injustice and enslavement in America by the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land (by extremely terse example; compelled compliance, government licenses, crimes and victimless crimes, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, etc.) and non-recognition of inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law).

maybe?  A portion of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind: "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Transporting the here "justice" subject matter to the Declaration's evils I think, would be much more accurate.

I feel very fortunate that when young the here general concept was instilled in me from multiple angles and perspectives. I was taught to question and experiment with experiences until I could know the difference between spirit and empty sensorial familiarity, true freedom from usurpations and slavery, etc.

ABSOLUTELY ! ! !

How many people can define in depth inalienable rights, liberty, nature's law or freedom?

A feel good wishful thought. To a few, the innate faculty rises to a can not exist without it. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's existence and certain expanding religions world wide refute the statement.

Our ancestors established a system of government based on nature’s law (natural law being an observation thereof). Nature’s law reflects morality and Christ’s teachings. Morality and sentiment are secondary observations (ultimate trappings), fluid at best and negatively migrate depending government administrators. Good Christians and good citizens, temporally arbitrarily, exist by personal perception.

Earthly governments are philosophies / religions of power and control, mostly engaged in a few usurping the many. As a rule, the greater the country's governmental application (the few) practices totalitarian (cause), the less the many have (effect).

Too, too funny, (-; I like it a lot ;-)

I like it a lot, way too accurate, way too often.

Got to love collectivism.

🤪 I like it a lot.

Sorta off topic / misdirection. The Constitution was written to limit a government body twice removed from individual sovereigns. The federal government was to be a union of States in republican form at the laws of nature and of nature's God. I'm not personally aware (I'm probably mistaken) of a constitutional provision that requires obedience to a specific clause?

I like it a lot — accurate beyond debate.

When considering Constitutional law ("the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence)) and an antithetical philosophy of legal positivism, anti-educated politicians come in all sorts, shapes and sizes of professional preparation.

Kinda sorta almost accurate. Freedom is as inherent in the sentient being as is individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law. Freedom to think is an eternal subcomponent of the broader “freedom”. Freedom to think can not be permitted or denied by corporeal man. More accurately, truth, facts, epistemology, etc. can forcibly be altered or refused from/to the sentient person changing the options within the scope of free thinking. Is free thinking really permitted (NOT more now than ever).