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

Yes, this is the case. Interestingly, if you google it, 90% of the hits will reference the May 2020 court opinion, but if you look hard you can find a hit referencing the July 2020 appeals court final ruling which threw the case out.
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/10/740258653/appeals-court-dismisses-emoluments-lawsuit-against-trump

 

And it hurts DC and Maryland how exactly?

 

If there are "limitations on certain forms of speech" then I can't see how there is absolute freedom of speech.

 

You refer to "limitations on certain forms of speech that do not qualify as free speech." So why can't hate speech be one of the "forms of speech that do not qualify as free speech?"

 

As I'm sure you are aware, the constitution does not include every federal law.

 

I'm really curious what the heck you're getting at with this.

Do you really think that anything that is considered speech should be allowed without there being repercussions?

 

as in I do not think death threats are free speech

 

And, by the way, Trump is losing big bucks as president.

 

What law prohibits a person from profiting from the presidency? Would it apply to the Clintons and the Obamas who both profited by the $tens of millions from their presidency? Would it apply to a president who loses money being president, like Trump?

 

I have a sort of weird admiration for your willingness to take indefensible positions.

"Another provision, which is sometimes referred to as the “domestic emoluments clause,” provides that the president shall receive “a Compensation” for his services, and shall not receive “any other Emolument from the United States, or any of [the several states].”

The meaning of the word “emolument” is contested in litigation challenging Trump’s alleged violations of both the foreign and the domestic clause. But most dictionaries from the era of the US’s founding define the word broadly. John Mikhail, a Georgetown law professor, looked at 40 different dictionaries published between 1604 and 1804 to try to determine how the word was understood at the time of the Constitution’s framing. He found that 37 of those 40 dictionaries give it a meaning that “would encompass sort of the profits of ordinary market transactions.”

Nearly all of these dictionary definitions, according to Mikhail’s research, encompass words like “profit,” “advantage,” or “gain.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...clause-trump-g7-resort-impeachment-businesses

I provide this with the full knowledge you will, as with so many things, not give any consideration to evidence contrary to your opinions.

 

Interesting question. How much profit does Don make from spending a weekend at his golf club while negotiations to provide economic relief to millions of struggling Americans have failed to reach a compromise?

At His New Jersey Golf Club, Trump Finds Supportive Audience


By The Associated Press

• Aug. 8, 2020Updated 1:12 p.m. ET
• 
  
• BEDMINSTER, N.J. — They hustled down the stairs, the rain dabbing their polo shirts and golf attire, as they dashed inside the clubhouse, drinks in their hands and masks missing from their faces.

It was an unexpected perk of their country club membership: being the audience for President Donald Trump’s hurriedly announced news conference Friday evening at his course in Bedminster, New Jersey.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/08/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-trump.html

 

A couple of ways where my position is not only defensible but borders on unassailable from any rational not fraught with hate person. The first is you said "profiting from the presidency" which is not the same as a president receiving money. The only presidents that I know of who profited handsomely from the presidency are the Clintons and the Obamas, and they profited by the $tens of millions at the minimum. Trump is losing millions by being president.

Secondly, the Constitution that you quoted correctly (surprisingly but impressively I might add because 95% of the antagonists, including the plaintiffs in the case, quote the emoluments clause for the 1st Article about Congress) says nothing -- zero, nada, zip -- about any foreign entities or any foreigners.

3rd, the Article I clause reads, "no person holding any office of profit or trust........ shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. Ignoring that this does not refer to the president, it means receiving side payments from only heads of state. Some dignitary or dingbat from France staying in Trump's DC hotel isn't even in the ballpark.

Put that into your indefensible cigar and smoke it.

 

Then I can't help you, as it is plain as day.

 

Simple: You have the right to express your dislike for something; that this dislike might stem from your hatred, or might be construed as hatred by someone else, in no way means you do not have the right to express said dislike.

 

Trump's business downturns come in spite of his using American tax payers as his personal cash machine.

In no way do his failures clear him of the charges being made.

 

It's not as easy as that.

Hate speech does include what its effect is - as well as what its effect is judged to be likely to be.

So, we have social media being required to take responsibility for administering prior constraint, we have the KKK losing big in court cases due to what they say, etc.

 

No, I'm just saying that if there are limitations on certain forms of speech, then I can't see how there is absolute freedom of speech. So I can't understand how it can be said that there is the right to FREE speech.

 

But if death threats were allowed, wouldn't that mean that there would be even more freedom of speech?

 

Do you feel that this post is related to 'free speech?'

 

How the hell is Trump "using American tax payers as his personal cash machine?" He's not taking a salary!

 

Yes, but where is this written?

 

There is clearly no ABSOLUTE freedom of speech.

 

And it hurts DC and Maryland how exactly?

 

An interesting question would be if speech rights should be awarded to non American citizens.

For example should Middle Eastern people be able to express hateful language to Jewish people even in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods?

This is an issue where I am right now.

 

You're trolling. You know perfectly well that slander laws have been applied!