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

"Harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger" USING speech?

 

Okay, so that is the government abridging freedom of speech, no?

 

It does not mention "political". But the Constitution is 100% political and all about government.

per Amendment 6, ".....the accused shall enjoy the right........... to be confronted with the witnesses against him;......." In England it was not uncommon for someone to be accused of wrong doing by someone, and then put on trial. But the accused had no right to question the accuser and so challenge the accusation. That was considered a major violation of judicial personal rights by the framers and so was prohibited.

 

Tarnishment, dilution, slander and libel are not forms of protected speech as the government is not prosecuting these as they are civil actions. Damages are assessed according to damage done to the parties and the government has no interest in the outcome. Prosecuting hate speech on the other hand would be an example of a criminal action where laws are present and the government has an interest as they are enforcing laws that they have created.

 

Calling the press the enemy of the people (or "fake news"), lying to the press (which Trump does not do, but I'll play along), refusing to provide information, choosing which media can and cannot interview him, and pressuring the NFL to stop peaceful protests (as inane as they are) in no way -- that's no as in zero, nada, zilch -- lessens the freedom of the press or speech. This is sandbox 101: freedom of the press means outlets are free to print whatever they choose. It does not mean that people can't ridicule them. It does not mean that people have to supply them with information that they will then print. It does not mean that people have to pay attention to and must talk with the media. It does not mean that non-government entities cannot tell their employees what they can say or do.

 

The US is heading straight into bizarro territory philosophically.
Everyone saying that freedom of expression is tantamount to human dignity but not if the speech is bad or offensive to a critical number of a “harmed” class of people.
The US does protect it’s citizens through it’s constitution which is quite clear but not when judges don’t view the constitution as the blueprint but rather a piece of literature written so long ago it is no longer relevant and can be safely ignored.
This is why I left the US because I see the Supreme Court as being increasingly hostile to the very document they are sworn to uphold.
The US without strict adherence to this document is merely a country with a lot of money and military power and even that is becoming evanescent!
If the US stands for anything now, it is who wore it better and who can be the best SJW and virtue signal the most effectively. It has become the nation of appearances uber alles.

 

So you mean LEFTIST justices?

Even so, isn't there a HELL of a lot more freedom in the US than anywhere else in the world?

 

That phrase about yelling fire in a movie theater is from a very famous 1st Amendment case. We ALREADY have laws for slander and libel.

You're not in America, are you?

 

Exactly, so people do NOT have the right to ANY speech.

 

Yes but it will change fast so I got out before that happens.

 

You should familiarize yourself with your subject before posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

 

A lot. But I didn't say anything about anything being "requested" in this thread. Strawman 1

I'm sure. Again, I said nothing about "preferences". Strawman 2

I didn't say NFL had anything to do with the press. Strawman 3

I'm always consistent with reality (to the best of my abilities). And, BTW, we also know with Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e5ec9e-d25b-11ea-9038-af089b63ac21_story.html

Huh? Of course we know it was for a photo op. What else?

There are plenty of reasons to believe that they were peaceful protesters.

 

Both are fine. When they are acted upon it is not fine.

 

Has there not been a call to violence from BLM. The destruction of private and government property are violent events, correct?
Someone incited this.
What, if anything, was their punishment?

 

Well, since you're playing along, I won't rebut that quoting samples of his average 15 lies per day.

The President works for the American people. Not just for those that tend to agree with him the most. He answers to all the people. Not just to consumers of the wingnut media echo-chamber

And you say that using the bullet pulpit to pressure the NFL to repress freedom of speech (including dog-whistles to his base to boycott the NFL) does not lessen freedom of speech?

I've been noticing lately that you have been losing a bit of contact with reality lately. Maybe you should take a look at that.

I'm not talking about "people". I'm talking about the President* of the United States. He works for Americans. All Americans. Including those sitting in front of him at a press conference and their audience. If he does not clearly, directly and truthfully answer their questions seeking non-classified information, he is most definitely attacking freedom of press and therefore, freedom of speech and even freedom of thought.

This is Freedom of Speech 101: the President of the United States (even an asterisk President*) does not live in a sandbox. He works for us. All of us, not just his voters. He swore to uphold the Constitution. If Trump can't handle the job, he just needs to resign. Easy as that.

 

Speaking of free speech...............

Alexander Vindman: Coming forward ended my career. I still believe doing what’s right matters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/01/alexander-vindman-retiring-oped/

"After 21 years, six months and 10 days of active military service, I am now a civilian. I made the difficult decision to retire because a campaign of bullying, intimidation and retaliation by President Trump and his allies forever limited the progression of my military career.

This experience has been painful, but I am not alone in this ignominious fate. The circumstances of my departure might have been more public, yet they are little different from those of dozens of other lifelong public servants who have left this administration with their integrity intact but their careers irreparably harmed."

 

Acted on by another person, or the one expressing a call to violence?

 

In order for something to be refused, something needs to be requested. You said that Trump had refused to provide information. Baseless accusation of Strawman 1.

If someone selectively chooses something, they are preferencing it. Baseless accusation of Strawman 2.

You mentioned the NFL in a reply section in which you quoted me asking how Trump has attacked the "freedom of the press", after you made that claim. Baseless accusation of Strawman 3.

Post here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/does-the-right-to-free-speech-actually-exist-in-the-us.576251/page-3#post-1071917362

Fine. Then Trump and Obama are as 'bad' as eachother, probably just like ANY Republican or Democrat administration, but I don't even think that it IS bad! I don't think the press should be immune from leaking classified material, do you? I think it was also a case of leaking classified material during Obama's time too. I don't have a problem with that, do you? If so, WHY?

To widen the perimeter surrounding the White House for safety reasons. However, I can certainly see how it LOOKED! However, it remains a conspiracy theory, as is anything which goes against the official government narrative, however justified such a theory may be due an untrustworthy government.

And yet you have failed to provide even ONE! And it's interesting that you didn't refute my argument that "peaceful protesters have been most unfortunately CAUGHT UP as the feds clear the HUMAN WASTE off the street." It seems that you don't make the argument that peaceful protesters are being specifically targeted by the feds. Great! That's more than can be said for others on your side.

 

True. Otherwise some become liberals.

 

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

Not under Trump

 

Or far right conservatives. The extremes on both sides are d***s

 

What, a Logan's Run scenario where the kiddies murder anyone with sense?

 

He said and wasn't arrested for it.

 

Here, nuance matters. "Far right conservatives" are one thing and the camo-clad crazies wanting to bring on War Three are entirely another. Those morons fully deserve SPLC attention (the FBI and DHS even more so).

People are hoarding supplies in fear of what EITHER side might do. An entire survivalist industry exists to feed on fear. Meals Ready to Barf. Urine recycling machines for extended bunker stays. Survival bunker designs, or companies to discreetly do it for you so the neighbors won't come over when Whatever-It-Is finally does us in.

Gun purchases are setting records. Even those cute young girlies we guys condescended to and put in their places have now gone to gun school. Mom now carries. Grandma packs a wonder-9. Men are getting polite.

 

To me, given that you want to take away a women’s right to choose, make you far right.