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

From what I read they only said “only white lives matter”. I might be wrong. I don’t agree because I think all lives matter, regardless of race. Race is meaningless, because these bodies are only vehicles for our spirit/soul.

haha, yoda said it best “luminous beings are we, not this crude matter“

 

What, you mean by default?

All, apart from Fox. Definite baseless accusation of Strawman.

I mean Trump and Obama are as bad as eachother SPECIFICALLY on so called 'attacks' on the media. Although again, I don't think the press should be immune from leaking classified material, do you?

Yes, but how do you know that the people in the videos are just "innocent protesters?"

Simple question: why did you mention the NFL in reply to a question about the press?

 

You seem confused. You do realise that it IS a crime in the US to call for violence?

 

In other words a Constitutional Convention ain't happening. So, as I've been saying, the voters will not have a say. Women's right to choose will be taken away by people who want to push their views on everyone else.

 

I could tell by that didgeridoo in the background there. I'm ever so relieved. Had you been a Pitcairn Island type I'd be speaking to someone who's their own uncle.

The original liberals were Republicans, who founded to oppose slavery. Compounding that is the old question of differing national standards. What's conservative to Islam (sacrificing animals for holy days is only one) is viewed altogether differently by animal-rights American leftists in PETA or the like. What's liberal to the U.S. is often conservative to the outside. It is not an easy topic to even define much less argue for any one side over the years. Positions shift as new topics emerge and old shibboleths die. To borrow Dr. Who: they reversed the polarity. And now look at what it got us!

 

If the medical procedure isn't covered under insurance then there will be women who can't afford the procedure, therefore taking away their choice.

 

There isn't going to be a Constitutional Convention but feel free to keep acting like it will.
When did I say Electoral College is wrong?

 

I know what the law is. I’m saying it should not be a crime. Only the direct action should be. That being said, I think we are still close enough in this country to say we have free speech, though it might be 99.99% and not 100%.

 

With all of those "nots" I think that your statement got tied into knots so I do not understand what you are saying or not.

 

It is protected by the first amendment. That isn't going to happen.

The offendee must get a life.

 

You seem confused about RvW….I explained in Post # 173

 

Wouldn't women still have the right to their bodies?

 

You seem confused about what my post was about. It wasn't about abortion.

 

@ECA, agree with this?

 

Why is hate speech protected by the First Amendment, but calls for violence NOT?

 

If abortions aren't available then they have lost the right to be able to make the choice.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
You seem confused about RvW….I explained in Post # 173

No, I referred to your confusion on RvW..

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
AGAIN, NO, RvW did NOT give women the right to have an abortion !

They always had the right to bodily autonomy just like everyone else except SLAVES..

RvW PROTECTED that right from those who see women as nothing more than broodstock.

Do you?

 

NO, they would not have the right of bodily autonomy.

 

Except the judges judicial activist bias. An example, (slightly off target, but still a good example of my point), is the Michael Flynn case. The judge should not have a stake in the outcome, yet he has proven the he puts his judicial activism ahead of the Law that he swore to uphold. Almost every ruling by the 9th District Court of Appeals is another example.

The same Constitutional Amendment that gives us free speach, also gives us Freedom of religion. Yet, the judicial activists work hard to curtail that freedom. So, you can not say that a judge's political bias does not come into play in every case.

 

That post had nothing to do with RvW.

 

Aren't you saying that women have ALWAYS had that right, and that RvW merely PROTECTED that right?

 

Mostly I agree but I can’t come up with a better surrogate to decide tort actions other than county and state courts.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO, they would not have the right of bodily autonomy.

Yes. Do you finally understand? It upheld and protected it..

All people have the right of bodily autonomy.

Take it away and you have slaves.

It's a basic human right.

 

Okay, so then why did you say this: