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

One can in fact be criminally charged by government authority for political incorrectness. IIRC you can be fined up to $25,000 in NYC for incorrectly referring to a transgender in violation of a NYC law.

 

I suppose I'm free to stand up in the gallery of the House of Representatives and bellow out whatever's on my mind. But I'd be forcibly removed by the guards and probably charged with civil disturbance (or whatever laws they cooked up after the Puerto Rican assassination attempt in 1954).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(1954)

Probably the only safe answer is, I am free to say whatever I want, just so I can live with the consequences.

 

Only as long as the present liberal majority exists on the Supreme Court.

The debate continues because the babies keep getting killed.

 

Yep.
If a person is murdered or otherwise physically harmed because the perpetrator doesn’t like women or men with beards or people wearing yoga pants in public they are not charged with additional penalties due to their selection of that particular group. Even if they admit that is the reason for their violence. Yet if they do physical harm to a racial or ethnic group they are charged additionally as hate criminals.

So what is the difference in the sentence? How can it not be logically true that the additional sentence is due to their motivation. And how can that additional sentence not be due to thoughtcrime? So thought is the additional criminal charge.

And why is the thought criminality not prosecuted equally?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
RvW IS resolved.

It still is resolved....and Repubs have NOT come up with a credible argument to challenge it or they would have challenged it

That is why there has been no credible argument, no "babies" are being killed.

If that's the Repub's argument then no wonder it hasn't gone anywhere...one needs FACTS to present an argument to the Supreme Court



Hyperbole and fairy tales aren't going to cut it



The debate only continues as Republican politicians say they are against abortion to scour the bottom for one issue voters .

 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg withheld the return of her cancer for four months hoping to still be alive after November and in her crazed imagination Biden would then appoint some hair-on-fire commie --- like Obama.

Meanwhile, white women Dems are told by Biden they aren't good enough, they gotta be black to be his VP. And he hides in his basement, afraid to campaign and TERRIFIED to debate. He's already told the poor that he'll raise their taxes along with everyone else's. What an economy-restarter! Straight from Comrade FDR's playbook, guaranteed to drag it out.

Ted Cruz is young enough to fill Ginsburg's seat and have a definitive impact on the Supremes. When Ginsberg goes, so will Roe v Wade.

 

Potential prosecution.

 

For what specifically? Give me an example of what you're referring to

 

Aren't 'hate crimes' just enhanced sentencing for crimes which are crimes without the hate factor?

 

Isn't that within the health system when referring to patients?

 

Republicans would have no standing to bring such a case to the courts.

 

Yes

 

It applies everywhere: if a nurse wrongly refers to sex, or a store clerk does also.

 

Also in NYC, you can be fined $25,000 for using the term "illegal alien." So how can NYC be allowed to get away with violating the Constitution?

 

WTF? Ted is interested?

 

What case?

 

"Non-journalism"? What does that mean? Was Jim Acosta promoting some business he owned, like they were doing for Ivanka?

You gotta be kidding me!

Why are you obsessed with the press? I'm focused on the title of this thread. The press is only one medium of free speech. As far as "free speech" there is no difference between twitter, tiktok or CNN.

Not as far as I know. Off the top of my head, the last published material I remember that was actually an obvious threat to national security was the one exposing Valerie Plame by Dick Chaney and his gang. Maybe some of the material released by Wikileaks, but it's hard to tell.

Anything that does not actually damage national security. This does not include information that if released, would be "embarrassing" to somebody in government. Nor information that is "classified" only because they want to hide a crime.

Can't post it here. Might be considered porn.



Protesting the US flag can certainly be seen as protesting the Constitution, of which the First Amendment is a part. There's nothing wrong with attacking anti-American protests. And Trump wasn't calling for anyone to be arrested. So the idea that Trump was attacking free speech by pressuring the NFL to stop peaceful protests, is DUMB beyond belief. And the DELICIOUS irony of idiots protesting the flag when America is such a 'horrible' and 'evil' country, that it gives them the right to protest the flag, unlike other countries where they could be jailed or killed! [/QUOTE]

 

Comparison of the free speech laws of all first world nations is not even slightly that easy. There are lots of aspects to free speech - who gets to blatanly lie concerning individuals, to what degree may one assault others, what can journalists report (such as concerning what goes on inside corporations), how are gross images handled (such as animal treatment), is it satisfactory to round up peaceful protesters and insert them in barbed wire encircled "free speech zones", to what degree is it legitimate to prevent the testimony of individuals on issues of national importance or to slow/block the publishing of books, etc., etc.

When we allow these actions we are degrading freedom of speech - among other obvious constitutional principles. We just say the constitution didn't mean that!!

Simply claiming "we're the best" is ridiculous. The declaration of speech freedom in the constitution of Peru is impressive. The entire EU has significant support for speech freedom. So does Canada.

 

I think the supreme court would likely rule that NYC ordinance unconstitutional (keeping in mind the probability of any court ruling is always 50/50) but it has not been adjudicated AFAIK let alone reached the supreme court.

 

IIRC they were talking about abortion.

 

Libel and slander cause harm by falsely degenerating a person's name and reputation.

 

Practice. And competition with Illinois and California, seeing who gets crazier first.

 

Excuse you. This is classical Hate Speech. In UK it is a crime.

Sadly people are fired and their livelihood is destroyed for Political Opinion far from Hate Speech.

 

Or are the speech codes in New York even unconstitutional, if THIS is what the First Amendment is:

 

Then it's not actually FREE speech. It's speech with limitations.