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

Sure, but it's a restriction on speech. So is there FREEDOM of speech?

 

I'm confused, because the First Amendment says NOTHING about government censorship. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." It does NOT say, Congress shall not censor speech.

 

Those people are members. The "@" before their name produces what's called a "tag." So I tagged those members. You've been around here for 10 years, so I'd be surprised if you've not seen it before.

 

And yet you said, "almost every right has a duty not to do harm or not to abridge ( like that word) the rights of others in the excercize of "your" right. This was in reply to my question, "does freedom of speech exist when there are certain restrictions on speech such as slander/libel and incitement of violence?"

 

Yes.

I am consistently stunned that Americans aren't more appreciative of their free speech standard.

It is the single greatest achievement of the US. When you ask yourselves "what makes us unique" this is your answer.

I don't have many kind things to say about libel or defamation laws. I called Trump out when he proposed expanding it to the European standard. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

And that your judiciary has a strict scrutinty standard for deciding such questions is a huge achievement.

Be proud of it.

 

The problem is that the First Amendment says NOTHING about government censorship.

 

The US is the only country I can think of that doesn’t practice criminal prosecution of so called hate speech. Here in the Netherlands those laws are technically on the books but seldom prosecuted. In Austria a woman was jailed for saying that Muhammad married a 6 year old girl so that makes him a pedophile. In England a man was arrested for quoting Churchill’s unflattering descriptions of Muslims and there are many more examples.

Slander and libel are civil actions between individuals and torts are not government prosecutions.

SCOTUS uses “clear and present danger” as the standard for prosecuting incitement to violence which in my opinion is so vague that it allows US jurisdictions to prosecute any speech they don’t like. Though these prosecutions can usually be appealed.
This remains the greatest barricade to free speech in the US. The second greatest is the casual gagging of speech within US universities which are effectively government entities as they are state supported.

 

Yes, but again, the government has MADE the tort law.

So then does the 'right to free speech' actually exist?

 

Yes, there's more freedom of speech in the US than anywhere on the planet obviously.

When did Trump propose that?

I'm not even American!

 

Well I was under the impression that the First Amendment was actually about this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

 

Tort laws are much more fluid than criminal prosecutions and the state has no interest in the outcome. Tort laws also never include incarceration or even judgments of specific performance but instead revolve around money damages.

 

What the hell were they achieving exactly? I mean, other than a platform for stupid activists like Jim Acosta to perform acts of NON-journalism! Anyway, they're back now.

Can you support your claim that Trump did this?

Twitter isn't a PRESS source, it's a social media company.

Alright, I should've said PUBLISH information leaked to them. So you said, "Everybody should be immune to leaking classified material unless it was classified because it posses a threat to national security, or because it puts American lives or interest (during a negotiation, for example) in jeopardy, ... and there may be other exceptions." And in the cases of Obama and Trump, the published material WAS a "threat to national security" weren't they?

You said, "in no case should anybody be prosecuted for leaking information that was classified for the sole purpose of keeping legitimate information from the American people." Where did you define what you meant by "legitimate information?"

I've seen videos of her and all she is doing is standing there and lying on the ground. You've obviously gotten confused by something or you just think that the feds have literally shot at everyone in their sight! Anyway, I eagerly await your source video.

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!

 

Yes, but they are still LAWS aren't they!

 

Well I was thinking that you might have said they could give Islam a free pass, in the interest of 'progressivism' or whatever. However, while that would increase PETA's 'progressive' profile, it would obviously destroy their 'animal rights' profile! Still, they may at least chose not to talk about it much, focusing more on superior Western nations where the abuse of animals isn't anywhere near as bad. A bit like feminists, who focus more on - or exclusively on - superior Western nations where the abuse of WOMEN isn't anywhere near as bad!

 

Well in the US at least, isn't a liberal someone who stands for fundamentally LIBERAL principles?

 

Well then, what's stopping a hate speech law from being introduced?

 

Then what's the POINT in the First Amendment? If it didn't even exist, everything that you have said above would still apply wouldn't it?

 

Which DIRECTLY contradicts this:

 

Yes but I draw a distinction between criminal prosecution and civil judgments. The US government has no interest in who wins in a case between the Kardashians and some tabloid for example.

I’m more concerned about gross violations of speech from the US government such as the alien and sedition act, the laws passed during the Lincoln administration. The completely illegal legislation passed during the Wilson administration and those are just the most egregious.

 

.

 

Those acts aren't enforced though are they?

 

The three I mentioned were strictly enforced and people went to prison.

 

According to what?

 

You only mentioned "not being able to yell fire in a movie theater."

 

Well if this is all that the First Amendment means, then a hate speech law can pass tomorrow!