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

Why would Republicans have no standing to bring any abortion case to the courts?

 

Have these actions been allowed?

You're joking aren't you? The EU and Canada have hate speech laws - probably the GROSSEST restriction on speech!

 

Have you hear some of Jim's RIDICULOUS questions which clearly don't serve in the interest of informing the public of anything? The man is a JOKER!

No. What the hell ever happened to your policy of always being able to support your opinion? You said that Trump thwarted Congressional oversight, and retaliated against whistleblowers with no support. Perhaps it's just your opinion based on factual events? Please note that this doesn't make your opinion factual.

Alright, so with regard to Twitter - Trump said, "Republicans feel that social-media platforms TOTALLY SILENCE conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen." So then, Trump is referring to a theoretical point in time where Twitter has TOTALLY SILENCED conservative voices. Now I can only assume that you would have a SLIGHT problem if Twitter totally silenced all voices other than conservative - or else totally silenced all voices other than radical white wing voices. So should Twitter be allowed to continue to operate like that? I very much look forward to your answer, assuming that you don't cut out this section from your reply.

Alright, but in the case of Obama and Trump, the legal pursuit of journalists hasn't been anything even CLOSE to being on the basis of these reasons. Or has it?

 

before Trump the government did not do these things... but I think after Trump things will get back to normal again, Trump attacks and punishes people from exercising their free speech, in Trump land everyone must worship him or go on the enemy list

 

It wasn't illegal to incite violence and slander someone before Trump? Surely you can't be serious!

Who exactly has Trump punished for their speech?

 

I wonder if that's true though, because during the Bubba Wallace FARCE, there was some talk about possible hate crime charges being made, for the person who made the noose if it was deemed to be motivated by hate. Perhaps this falls under the legal category of threats.

 

Actually, I was thinking about this Californian law which applied specifically to nursing homes: https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/06/california-can-now-jail-people-for-misusing-gender-pronouns/

 

Speech which incites violence.

 

Who specifically is being prosecuted for speech that incited violence?

 

do you want it to be legal to incite violence, not getting your question?

 

It seems that you don't think much of Kavanaugh and Roberts.

 

Why haven’t all women who’ve had an abortion been arrested for murder?

 

Yeah, so it would be based on the disturbance caused, not the speech spoken.

 

What are you referring to by, "nationwide popular vote?"

 

So can it be considered as, Congress shall make no law that censors speech?

 

Isn't the threat of prosecution abridgement?

 

Alright. And given what it says, do you think that it prevents a hate speech law from being made?

 

Without question. Nice speech doesn't require protection. Hate speech does.

 

Just on shouting fire in a crowded theater - this is about causing a disturbance, so it's not the speech itself which is prosecuted is it?

 

Because they are neither the mother nor the fetus.

 

To have standing to bring a court case you have to be directly harmed from the case itself. Just being aggrieved or bothered by the law does not count.

 

Maybe, though censor likely implies a little more heavy restriction than abridging.

 

Yes. Speech is never prosecuted. The first amendment doesn't allow it. Speech can have consequences as I told you earlier.

 

Well states can take the federal government to court without being directly harmed from the issue in question, right?

 

Probably.