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

Absolutely! But 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, pressuring the NFL to stop peaceful protests,... many ways... t

We don't know at this point. At least I myself don't.

I have said no such thing.

No they haven't. They are gassed so this President* can take a photo-op with an upside down Bible. They have been taken off the streets on unmarked bans, they have been shot at, flogged, gassed, pushed to the ground for no reason ...

You have no idea what has been going on in this country, do you?

 

An Australian reporter and photographer with press credentials were assaulted and one was struck by a cop wielding a baton, the night Trump took his trip to the photo op at the nearby church.

 

Didn't happen.

 

Since the people who painted the BLM mural had a permit to do so by the city, then yes, those two who took it upon themselves to paint over it are guilty. They should have followed the law to file an appeal, just like the folks who filed for the permit.

 

Shooting people is not speech. The words expressing hatred are fine. Actually committing violent acts is not.

 

Criticizing the accuracy and the bias of the media is an expression of a desire to silence it?
Doesn't - everyone- want the media to be accurate and unbiased?

He has every right to do so - free speech works both ways.

 

Yes, it exists, but like most things is not unequivocally absolute. Constitutional guarantees of free speech, while not limited to, mostly are focused on political speech. The Constitutional, for example, does not protect someone from being sued for slander or libel.

Some constitutional rights are contradictory which makes it sometimes very interesting. A classic example is from the OJ trial where the accused has the constitutional right to confront a witness, but the witness (Furman) has the constitutional right to not be a witness against himself. What to do??!!?? (Judge Ito gave Furman the nod and OJ the boot.)

 

That's what this election is coming down to. Do you want Freedom or Violent Totalitarianism?

PUTTING THE TOTAL IN TOTALITARIANISM: Nothing escapes the Sauronic eye of the cancellation squad, which is now after U. of North Texas professor Timothy Jackson for writing an article in the music theory Journal of Schenkerian Studies that was skeptical of a fellow prof’s allegation that there is a “‘white racial frame’ in music theory that is structural and institutionalized.” And like clockwork, Dean John W. Richmond of UNT’s College of Music has announced an investigation into Jackson.

Who wants to live under the control of these hideous people? Why would we relinquish our God-Given rights to eat this bowl of sh*t?

 

How can speech harm?

 

Yes, because the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bare arms, not the right to keep and MURDER with arms.

 

And yet, people don't have the FREEDOM to use their speech in that way.

Speech hasn't evolved. Arms have.

 

Everyone has the right to ANY speech?

 

It makes precisely zero sense. Nobodies civil rights were violated here. What do YOU make of it?

 

So far, no Chi Coms have visited my property and attempted to kidnap me to the rehabilitation thru slave labor camp so until that happens, it’s not yet Hong Kong speech regulation yet.

 

Well it doesn't have to be China level to be not free speech.

 

Short of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Is that what you propose as Free Speech?

If you do not understand that reference, then you shouldn't be discussing this American right.

 

No you’re right...it is bothersome that I can’t yell “fire” when I’m in a theater. Damn oppressive govt.
<sarcasm off>

 

Did I say that it was "bothersome?" No, I'm just saying that it's a RESTRICTION of speech, which is why I'm asking if the right to free speech (total freedom to use ANY speech) actually exists.

 

You're not the first one to say that the only restriction is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, but what about slander/libel and speech which incites violence?

 

I don’t consider not being able to cause panic and fear and possibly injury to people a “restriction” of speech. Apparently you do. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

The Constitution mentions political speech?

What does it mean to "confront" a witness?

 

The words expressing hatred, or the words expressing a call to violence?

 

Are you sure? It's kind of on tape!

 

What has been requested which has been refused?

Are you saying that Obama didn't have media preferences? You may want to think about that.

What does the NFL have to do with the press?

Alright, sure, but we DO know with Obama don't we? It sounds like you also criticise Obama's record with the press, in which case, you're being most consistent.

That's a conspiracy theory. We don't know that it was specifically so that Trump could have the photo op. Also, this Bible doesn't look upside down to me:

I know that peaceful protesters have been most unfortunately CAUGHT UP as the feds clear the HUMAN WASTE off the street. And you have ZERO context for those who were "taken off the streets." You had NO IDEA that they were merely peaceful protesters. You just have random videos I'm afraid.