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

EyesWideOpen said: ↑
We would first need the courts to dehumanize the person as a non-human blob of cells. Then you can surely kill them for the sake of your convenience.

FoxHastings said: ↑
Are you talking about women? because that is exactly what some righties want to do to them...

By banning abortion, taking away women's right to bodily autonomy, they are dehumanized to a " non-human blob of cells".



THAT is misogyny....

 

IF abortion is banned that takes away women's right to bodily autonomy.

It is very simple, but I am not surprised you don't want to understand.

 

No one will stop you from yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but you bear responsibility for having done so.

The result you achieve may just be being told to sit down and shut up, or to leave under threat of trespass.

What happens to you will depend upon the result of your actions. If you cause a stampede that results in personal injury or property damage, you may be held liable for that. But, again, your free speech has not been denied.

 

As others have pointed out, the Constitution is written to establish government and rules of governance. It does not establish federal or state law. The 1st amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and press is assuring that people can present grievances about the government, including officials, say anything they wish, without recourse. It says nothing about person A saying or writing something about person B, although there has been extension of these rights.

It stems from the English law that said writing or saying critical things about the king, for instance, was treasonous and could be a capital offense.

 

And here I thought you'd like the joke. Nope, never been there.

I'm not a member but feel they would not object to my saying they are not happy with the slaughter of any animal for any purpose, religious or not.

 

Trump has not banned abortion. Bottom line to the argument. All the hyperventilating is just distraction.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑


By banning abortion, taking away women's right to bodily autonomy, they are dehumanized to a " non-human blob of cells".

THAT is misogyny....

LOL....Where TF did I mention Trump in the post of mine you quoted??

Talk about hyperventilating !! Hallucination??


Just because you can't dispute what I said doesn't mean you can make up stuff......

 

This has spread over several threads now but I am NOT making anything up. When Trump denied tax money for abortion, the left here went into the berserkosphere(tm) and haven't descended yet. It's wandered off into he's gonna ban abortion, but NOBODY gave proof of that.

Then I asked if leftists would abide by a nationwide popular vote, without any Electoral College middle-people, to settle this once and for all. We've argued since 1972, so let's just vote and get it done with.

Crickets. With 400-horsepower engines. Democracy for Democrats only works when it works their way.

 

Eliminating press briefings, undermining his own experts, thwarting Congressional oversight, retaliating against whistleblowers, ... the list is too long.

For example: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52821304

Ok. I thought it was a "typo" and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Then the question is answered: the press cannot "leak classified material" because they don't have a security clearance.

I don't know what it "is". But I just defined what I mean by it.

My information source is the video of the lady being shot at.

My answer is directed at the question in the title.

 

It’s not crickets. What you are proposing will never happen. There is never going to be a nationwide vote on abortion. You can keep going on with your ‘what if’ scenario, but that’s all it will be.

 

Then are you willing to consider agreement with the idea that WITHOUT such a vote, the issue of Roe v Wade will remain unresolved, and the debates will remain endless? Impractical? Our Declaration of Independence was impractical! Look how many who signed it were ruined, hounded into debt or ruinous health. They signed that vellum anyway and thousands of lives later we became a free country because we believed in the impossible.

 

Bottom line. We adopted and then repealed Prohibition, entirely by the legal way. It can be done. To settle this major issue, it must be done.

 

There is a chance Roe v Wade gets overturned if more judges who want to push their views on everyone else get appointed.

 

I can't seem to get through to you so I will stop trying. Again, all speech is protected by the first amendment from government censorship. Some speech brings consequences. That has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment is about government censorship. The first amendment protects ALL speech from government censorship. It is what it is. I can't make it any more simple than that. Stop asking the same questions over and over. You have your answer.

 

RvW IS resolved.

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

 

A popular vote in a Republican Presidential victory?

 

@RodB, @quiller, @cirdellin - is this correct?

 

Yes it only protects Americans from government legal action. Though that may change.

 

There is recourse against slander but there is no right to be offended since being offended is an opinion. what offends you may not offend me or vice versa. There is recourse if someone threatens you yet the law may or may not agree with you that you were threatened. The closest Constitutional amendment that i can think of off hand is the 14th that would come close to a right not to be threatened.

 

I have no idea what you mean. But I'm not answering any more questions.

 

That is essentially correct. However it has been extended somewhat mostly by broadening what constitutes a grievance against the government -- flag burning, e.g, and by further individual extension like by making it extremely hard for well-known people to sue (and win) for slander/libel. Courts often expand on what they think the Constitution says or means, and courts have no real checks and balances. Basically whatever the supreme court says is constitutional or unconstitutional is the end of it.

 

What was found was that prohibition was actually worse.

And, we came to the SAME conclusion on abortion, too, as we made abortion legal.

More importantly, this issue is being kept alive because of its political value in elections.

If we wanted to reduce the number of abortions in the USA, we would work on THAT. Instead, what gets touted is ever more repressive laws.

Canada has NO laws on abortion and their abortion rate is lower than ours.

Yet, all the politicians can come up with is more and more laws.

In the end, it seems Canada's success just isn't good enough as a basis for making promises to use federal and state power in righteous indignation against women in what could not POSSIBLY be a more personal decision.

In America, we don't even promise that a women can take her baby to see a doctor.

 

';

If you mean a blanket to protect you from harm caused by purposefully lying with the intent to do harm, no. And that's a good thing.

 

Your last sentence is nonsense.

It's the standard slop about how we're the best - and, once again with nothing behind it.

Is America a "free speech zone"? Or is free speech limited to the interior of barbed wire enclosures maintained by military style police?

 

Where is speech MORE free than the US?

What the hell are you talking about? I suppose America could be considered a "free speech zone."