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

Yes. Long ago.

 

Your first sentence is entirely hypothetical.

I did not say that speech can be violence. I said that speech can foment violence.

Hate speech ends communication. It blocsk the possibility of meaningful speech.

 

If it was happening then you should be able to provide information of those cases.

 

What's "ridiculous" about about a member of the press asking if the President* of the United States will stop calling the press the enemy of the people?

I know that if the idiot in Chief started calling IT consultants "the enemy of the people" I would praise anybody who took any opportunity to make him stop doing that, before somebody gets hurt.

I see. So once again you make a wild claim that you can't substantiate. Waste of time...

 

Sure it is, but why can't you answer it? The reason is, because the answer would be most inconvenient for you! You know PERFECTLY well that the person would be kicked out! And I'm sure that I could find an example of a protester at an Obama event being kicked out!

You said, "hate speech really IS violence." Are you now retracting that?

How? Does it involve someone cutting someone elses tongue off?

 

They were not "unnecessary" They were criminal.

No I didn't

 

Even if this was all true - which we don't know - you know FULL WELL that the VAST majority of BLM protests have not been touched by Trump. You're full of crap. You're just gas lighting.

 

Acosta was grand standing, yet you seem to think that this performance was highly professional! He thinks that he is incredibly important!

If you think that JOKER Acosta is a proper, respectable journalist, this should convince any reasonable person that he is not:

You're acting as if you have evidence that him calling the press "the enemy of the people" has resulted is somebody getting hurt.

I was playing by YOUR rules! During this exchange, you have made MANY more claims than me! This is the thing about you - you pride yourself as being someone who can support their positions, but you fail miserably to live up to it! Just look at what you conveniently cut out from my last reply after knowing full well that you have nothing in response! Let's just see which claims of yours remain unsupported:

1. Your claim that Trump thwarted Congressional oversight, and retaliated against whistleblowers. If you're talking about Rick Bright, we don't know that he was removed from his position due to his actions. Come back to me when we do. You may not be aware that his reassignment was a year or so in the making.

2. Your claim that Trump threatening to shut down Twitter was attacking free speech.
Your constant deflection of my challenge to you about whether you think that Twitter should be allowed to continue to operate if they totally silenced all voices other than conservative - or else totally silenced all voices other than radical right wing voices, tells me that you absolutely would think that they shouldn't be allowed to continue to operate. And if you admitted that, then you would destroy your own argument!

3. Your claim that Trump has attacked the press, "mainly by lying, by refusing to provide information about what is happening in the government, by selectively choosing which media outlet the President* and his officials do interviews with."

So then, you're not really doing too well are you? I await all of this to be cut from your next reply, if you reply at all!

 

Again, nobody NEEDS to be prosecuted in order to say that the laws against speech are a restriction of speech.

 

Exactly. You aren't able to defend your position!

 

Okay, so there is no absolute freedom of speech.

 

And that would include if a hate speech law was passed?

 

Not inciting violence, but yes to slander/libel being considered free speech.

As in, NO, you don't think that free speech actually exists?

 

Well that's something that I didn't know. That explains why New York and California have been able to pass their speech codes, but it makes me wonder why more Democratic states/cities haven't tried to pass them.

 

I mean it's pretty damn clear that these cases were purely political, to try to distract Trump's presidency. What a pile of human waste these people are. I can't believe that I didn't hear more about these blatant political attacks in conservative media.

 

Which laws are you referring to? Sounds like these laws you’re referring to aren’t being upheld since nobody is being prosecuted. And your issue is?

 

Nobody has ever been charged with inciting violence or slander? Surely you can't be serious!

 

By all means provide examples. Make sure to include links

 

I don't know. Maybe most have at least a modicum of common sense. In the list of moronic Democrat states New York and California are at the top.

 

Both the immigration ban and the emoluments cases were handled on entirely political bases at the District Court level. The judge in the Hawaii case was unabashedly blatant. In his ruling he cited words that Trump had said during the 2016 campaign that the judge thought showed bias and prejudice. Problem is that had zero to do with any law or legalities nor was it probative in any way. This case did get to the Supreme Court because it had no problem getting the OK from the 9th Circus Court. The circuit court in the emoluments case unanimously rejected the district court judge's finding and even thought about admonishing the judge.

 

Well, that's what the Orange Menace would have you believe. But profiting from the presidency is something the founders thought was important to prevent, for obvious reasons. Why do you think it is purely political to enforce the Constitution? Because Don says so? Because he feels he should be able to do anything he wants once he was elected?

 

Is this the case you're discussing?

Appeals Court Allows Emoluments Suit Against Trump to Proceed
The court rejected the president’s request to dismiss a case brought by the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia regarding his Washington hotel.

• May 14, 2020
• WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in Virginia on Thursday revived a lawsuit accusing President Trump of violating the Constitution by profiting from his Washington hotel, a decision that will most likely lead the Justice Department to appeal to the Supreme Court to keep the plaintiffs from gathering evidence in the case.

“We recognize that the president is no ordinary petitioner, and we accord him great deference as the head of the executive branch,” the majority opinion from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said. “But Congress and the Supreme Court have severely limited our ability to grant the extraordinary relief the president seeks.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/us/politics/trump-emoluments-clause-fourth-circuit.html

 

There is, You have he absolute right to exercise your right to free speech; limitations on certain forms of speech that do not qualify as free speech do not affect or negate this.

 

Obviously.

 

FYI, the founders, framers, and Constitution says nothing, as in zero, zip, and nada, about any profiting from the presidency.