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

Here is an otherwise argument for you. The first amendment protects ALL speech from government intervention. You cannot be prevented by government from saying whatever you like. You cannot be prosecuted for what you say. However, speech has consequences. As an example, government can't stop you from saying something slanderous. But it can prosecute you for slander. Slander is crime. Speech is not.

 

Hawaii had standing because they could claim harm (with a lot of looseness) from Trumps's restriction on immigration from certain countries. Plus Hawaii had a Trump hating activist Federal District Judge who was all in favor of the suit. A bit like Maryland claiming hurt under the emoluments clause because foreigners paid money to stay at Trump's hotel in Washington. They were granted standing from a supportive (and some say collaborative) District judge, but their standing and the suit was thrown out by the appeals court. IIRC the same resulted from the Hawaii suit, though, IIRC again, it got to the Supreme Court.

 

The conversation lies in context of the protection of free speech by the constitution.
You cannot defend yourself against a charge of libel by claiming the 1st amendment protects your right to libel someone, because libel falls outside the right to free speech.

 

i was speaking of the political power of Wyoming compared to California.

I think it was Hamilton in particular who had grave misgivings about giving too much power to the people. But he also said the greatest man in history was Julius Caesar.

 

Libel is a crime. You can libel people without government intervention. But you do need to face the consequences of what you said.

 

The US constitution is what it is.

 

?? Absolutely - Republican candidates have forcibly moved protestors to "free speech zones" encircled with barbed wire. Have Dems done that? I don't know of any cases.

It depends on the definition of course, but America is built on equality, not on racism.

Hate speech foments action in contravention of everything we stand for as a nation. It also foments violence, as hate speech really IS violence, just not physical assault.

In fact, hate speech is an assault on freedom of speech.

 

I know of no Republican of Democrat candidate for anything that has rounded up anybody and put them in "free speech zones" encircled with barbed wire.

so much for all the Trump haters.......

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

The consequences of ones speech certainly can include prosecution.

Such prosecutions have been carried out by the state and by indiviuals and organizations.

 

The first "free speech zone" was probably the one in 1988 at the Democratic National Convention. There have been a good number of uses since then, including at WTO protests, political convenntions, the San Frascisco airport, and other places.

GWBush greatly expanded the use of "free speech zones", physically forcing protesters into encirclements of various kids.

Feel free to look it up.

 

Right.
Because the right to free speech does not include the right to libel, and thus, the constitution does not protect you from the laws against same.

 

Sure but not the speech itself. The prosecution would be for the crime,

Indeed.

 

Ok, you must be referring to "prior restraint".

In the US there are laws that allow for prior restraint. They include preventing testimony, blocking books being published, denying the use of public fora, etc.

 

Yes. Censorship. All speech is protected. All speech has consequences. When the speech commits a crime then the crime is prosecuted. When it doesn't then government can't do anything about it.

 

??

I just pointed out ways that governmet DOES have the power of prior constraint.

Those are cases where the crime is to speak. There does not have to be proof of damage by what is said.

 

The crime is not to speak. The crime is the content of what is said. It is the consequence of the speech that matters not the fact that somebody said something.

 

Prior restraint involves ordering someone not to speak.

For example, it may be ordered that unpublished books not be published. It may be ordered that investigations of illegal corporate practices may not be pubished. It includes publication of information considered to be of national security. It includes publication of material in legal cases in progress. Etc., etc.

Exhibition of works of art or the publishing of movies may require a government license - making the publishing of those works illegal regardless of content.

In cases of prior restraint it is the act of speaking that is illegal - NOT what is said. Even if there is no evidence of damage by what was said, it is still illegal as a breech of the order not to speak.

 

I see your point. A judge could require people not to talk in public about a trial. Oddly I see that as unconstitutional. Obviously, government has made an exception in some way.

 

I'm not sure why you decided to limit your response to that one case.

But, so be it, I guess.

 

If I protested at a Biden rally, causing a massive disturbance, what would happen to me exactly?

How can ANY speech be "violence?"

How exactly?

 

What harm did they claim?

How is this relevant to whether they had 'standing?' It seems to me that this is only relevant to why Hawaii took on the case.

Did they say what the problem is with foreigners paying money to stay there?

According to the Wikipedia page for the case, it was revived in May: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._and_Maryland_v._Trump

Yeah, it was Trump v Hawaii in June 2018. That's why the travel ban remains in place.

 

Seriously? Hawaii went after Trump over the travel ban.

 

Do you consider any country that has a hate speech law, as a country that has free speech?

 

Sure:

To use your words, it's OBVIOUS!

I guess you would also say that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, saying that the evidence is "obvious" as an convenient excuse to not provide evidence! Your claim that Trump thwarted Congressional oversight, and retaliated against whistleblowers remains TOTALLY unsupported. So much for your policy!

You cut out my question: "So should Twitter be allowed to continue to operate like that?" (if Twitter
totally silenced all voices other than conservative - or else totally silenced all voices other than radical right wing voices.)

Why the hell are you equating Twitter and a news network like Fox?

So then how can you criticise Trump and presumably Obama for investigating and/or spying on journalists? Hell, in Trump's case, it was only the DHS which compiled intelligence reports on journalists who published leaked documents. YOU informed me of that when you posted this!: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e5ec9e-d25b-11ea-9038-af089b63ac21_story.html

 

Seriously.