Does the 'right to free speech' actually exist in the US?

Your question was "do you finally understand?" The answer is NO, I don't understand, because you have contradicted yourself. Again, you first said this:

THEN you went on to say this:

 

Are there a number of options to choose from?

 

Why is hate speech protected by the First Amendment, but calls for violence NOT?

 

Is there a right to not be offended or be slandered? Is there a right to not be threatened with violence?

 

So you're also against laws against threats?

 

You're familiar with the Pitcairn Islands?

How is it viewed by PETA?

 

Yeah, you have it slightly wrong. As much of a liberal HELL HOLE California is, it's not THAT bad that they have a speech code against offensive speech.

I agree, but for as long as 'black lives matter' gets thrown around, I think that it's perfectly reasonable for 'white lives matter' to be thrown around too. Of course, both should be scrapped in favour of ALL lives matter! And if the majority of the country thought that black or whites lives DON'T matter, then I would say that there's a legitimate reason for specifying a race in that slogan.

 

What about it?

 

Free speech means expressions of opinions.

libel and defamation of character and things like that is not opinion. it is lying and passing those lies off as fact in order to harm a person's reputation. Why should that be protected as free speech.

Then there are things such as lying about public health and safety issues, so she has falsely reporting fires or crimes he's like that.

having laws against all of this things do not interfere in your ability to express opinions or ideals.

 

What year did you get out?

 

Yes, but the government has MADE those laws. And the first Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." It's NOT, Congress shall not prosecute laws that they have created... abridging the freedom of speech.

 

So people were charged with absolutely no basis of evidence?

 

What about hate speech and speech which incites violence?

 

Addressing slander and libel laws as infringements on free speech. Even if they are they don't apply to slander / libel attacks on public figures who can't sue.

Yeah, this was just one aspect of the attacks.
Jay Sekulow: Victory! IRS admits Tea Party, other conservative groups were targets during Obama era

in a proposed Consent Order filed with the Court yesterday, the IRS has apologized for its treatment of our clients -- 36 Tea Party and other conservative organizations from 20 states that applied for 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) tax-exempt status with the IRS between 2009 and 2012 -- during the tax-exempt determinations process. Crucially, following years of denial by the IRS and blame-shifting by IRS officials, the agency now expressly admits that its treatment of our clients was wrong.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jay...ervative-groups-were-targets-during-obama-era



October 27, 20173

 

According to what? Your opinion?

Who is "she" and "he?"

Correct.

 

It's still a restriction on speech though isn't it?

 

Technically, free speech as we know it from the First Amendment applies to our interaction with the government
Congress shall make no law ,,,,,,, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
We can criticize the government and public officials all we want and they have no recourse.

We can be held criminally liable if we yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater or civilly liable if we engage in slander or libel against a private citizen.

 

What about it?

 

Freedom of speech applies only to expressing opinions and ideals. It doesn't protect many forms of speech. Threatening someone for example isn't free speech.

 

No, it is a form of speech that carries consequences. It is still protected speech.

 

The "evidence" was the word of the accuser.

 

Yes, but the First Amendment doesn't specify, speech which doesn't have consequences. So how do we get around that?

 

A picky correction: public figures can sue for slander or libel; they just have one helluva time winning such a suit. IIRC Melania Trump got a settlement from such a lawsuit, for instance.

 

The harm from slander is not necessarily financial, but the remedy often is.

For instance, if you were to falsely warn people that an auto mechanic will charge you for new OEM parts, then install cheap Chinese knock-offs, you are harming his reputation, which, in turn, may or may not result in financial harm.

His remedy will likely involve you making a public retraction of your false statements, and include monetary remedy if he can show his business was directly harmed.

So, again, your free speech has not been denied by government. But with great power, comes great responsibility.

 

a correction to my picky correction. I don't know for sure but maybe elected public officials cannot sue for slander or libel,