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

Read my post again - I didn't say Trump was successful in stifling free speech. I said he has attacked those rights, all the while enjoying his own.
And yes, I know - Lefties are bad. They are coming after your free speech. As I said - first world problem.

 

First world problems are complaining about the quality of your Starbucks order. Free speech is an international issue that seeks to erode individual ability to express discontent and both the left and the right wish to stifle anything that threatens their power base. But the left has been more successful in attacking free speech as noted in my posts.

 

It exists, but there's good and bad that comes with it. Like all this cancel culture. Poor goya man said something nice about trump (which was his right) and now all kinds of libs are talking trash on him (which is their right). Its all or nothing with free speech, no picking and choosing whats OK and what isn't OK.

 

Didn't you read the first post? I mentioned inciting violence and libel/slander.

 

So how is this not a restriction of speech?

 

Yes, I read your vague OP. What specifically are you referring to where the govt infringed upon your free speech?

 

First world problems are labelled as such when there is complaining about things that - in the whole scheme of things - really isn't a 'problem'. And I maintain that anyone complaining about free speech while living in the US are experiencing first world problems.

Yes - I know the vital importance of free speech. I just don't see it as being in grave jeopardy...certainly not enough to say that free speech doesn't actually exist in the US today.

 

Attacking the freedom of the press? How exactly? By calling them the enemy of the people? Come on! What journalists has Trump spied on like Obama? I'm sure you'd say that the press was totally not under attack from Obama! And how is the right to protest under attack? People have been freely protesting all over the country for months! You're talking absolute nonsense as usual.

 

In the absence of new and practical ideas, I fear the left in the US at least has resorted to tired old cliches about the rich and redistribution of wealth and are protecting these shopworn political ideas by trying to gag those in opposition.

They are in the majority of world leaders who do the same so if consensus is the measure of ethical comportment, then bravo or brava to those in the American or international left who think some speech should be banned on it’s face.

Too bad Chavez is dead or he could make a fortune on the US lecture circuit in how to squelch dissent in the west. His failures are of no concern. He had morality on his side, right?

 

The First Amendment says that Congress "shall make no law - abridging the freedom of speech." Well there are laws which do just that, are there not?

 

Which specific ones are you against?

 

What exactly has he done to attack those rights?

Oh, so you're not on the left? I thought you seemed to be.

 

I'm not saying that I'm against any. I'm just saying that there laws against certain speech. So how is that not a restriction of speech?

 

The right to free speech does not include the right to harm others or place them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
So: Yes.

 

The same way the laws against committing murder with a firearm are not a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

+100. I nominate this for post of the week. Very nice!

 

The person committing the murder will be held and charged. The right to owning a firearm is not to be extended to killing indiscriminately. What does this have to do with free speech in any case?

 

A restriction like, not being able to yell fire in a movie theater, does not mean free speech doesn't exist.
Do you think the right to bear arms doesn't exist because the avg citizen can't own a rocket launcher?

 

See the post I responded to.

 

The important distinction is that one should be allowed to yell fire if they believe there is a fire. Holmes was a narcissistic idiot who also thought he could make reproductive decisions for others and even wanted to exempt anti trust legislation for baseball and only because he liked baseball. He was a self absorbed ******** more than willing to sacrifice others so he gets what he wanted. The law was inconvenient to him. May he burn in Hell.

 

Are you saying if there is a fire one can't yell that there is a fire?
In regards to yelling fire when there isn't one, it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm.

 

We have free speech up to the point where we may begin to rock the political boat, at that point all bets are off as to whether we still retain free speech.

 

The problem is not that we have the right, it's that many folks who think they are exercising their right think it includes the right not to react to their speech. EVERYONE has the right of Free Speech, and if I disagree with you, I have the right to voice that too!

 

Where do you stand on charging people with hate crimes for painting over a #BLMob mural?
Not the charges of vandalism and possession of tools to commit vandalism or graffiti, but the violation of civil rights with a hate crime specification.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/us/h...ves-matter-mural-painted-over-trnd/index.html