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

It prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

It does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

 

Violating the restrictions of political correctness will not get you put into jail. They may get you fired from your job. For several decades it has been dangerous to say anything critical about Negroes. On the other hand, Negroes can safely condemn whites.

 

Yes, and what LAW could possibly be passed in the absence of the First Amendment which would physically prevent someone from saying whatever they want?

 

I meant today.

 

Interesting reply!

 

Today and since the Brandeis court the US government has been better about staying out of free speech considerations.

 

But does the freedom of speech really exist then?

 

When I do a post and then think better of it, I replace it with a period.

 

Not as much as I would like. The vague incitement rules, the notion of yelling fire in a crowded theater rule (also vague) and the gag orders on some types of political speech in government supported universities are presently the worst violators of free speech liberties.

 

No it can't. SCOTUS ruled that opinion and viewpoint based speech, including hate speech, is protected. Only direct attacks and insults are not. Those fall under the fighting words doctrine.

 

What case?

 

And? I have no idea where you’re going with this. Get to the point

 

That is what it says.

 

Here is an interesting case and a wonderful test of first amendment protections and why I am so impressed with Louis Brandeis:

In Whitney v. California (1927),[110] in which Communist Party USAorganizer Charlotte Anita Whitney had been arrested for "criminal syndicalism", Brandeis wrote a dissent in which he argued for broader protections for political speech:

Those who won our independence ... believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.[111]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
IF abortion is banned that takes away women's right to bodily autonomy.

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

No, nothing in the above post of mine contradicts anything that I have posted …

IF you applied logic , you'd see those statements are not contradictory and I am having a hard time figuring out how you possibly could!


Maybe if you practiced making statements instead of asking silly questions you, too, could learn to apply logic ...

 

Couple of years ago, I'd be googling to find it too. It's out there.

Haha my bad mate I assumed.

 

I’m not even in America any more either but the American commitment to the greatest free speech was it’s best redeeming value. With that under attack then America stands for trivial entertainment, consumer culture and the SJW cause of the week.

 

Maybe nothing. But probably this would be where the 1st amendment rights get extended to prohibit government from criminally prosecuting any speech. The most practical problem with a law against hate speech is defining and quantifying it. How can one logically, rationally, and legally determine what is "hate" speech. Then how would criminal penalties be assessed.

 

So I'm asking about hate speech and speech which incites violence. There are restrictions against this type of speech.

 

What specifically are the restrictions?

 

abridging the freedom of speech or not censor speech has a distinction without a difference. Censoring is abridging.

 

Hate speech will be decided on how emotional charged the issue is at the time of legislation and the make up of SCOTUS. The alien and sedition act and the espionage act passed only because people were extremely frightened at the time. Emotion generally carries the day when it comes to the passage of legislation.

 

If you express conservative views you might get knocked to the pavement by violent leftist assault or spit upon or be the target of other sundry sniveling acts, so what you do is just put it on the back burner and don't say anything to anybody except your closest, trusted circle of friends, you especially don't reveal anything on your phone, you don't ever talk to journos, and you hold your words, and then you speak loudly on November 3rd.

 

I agree. When I said The most practical problem with a law against hate speech is defining and quantifying it, I didn't mean that it wouldn't ever be done. It clearly might because of the reasons you cite. We now have laws against "hate crimes" because the emotions demanded them even though nobody can rationally define what a hate crime really is or distinguish between a hate murder and a regular murder.

 

If it's to be fair, the answer reluctantly is no. Special cases deserve special elections. Any change whatsoever to our ruling document must be given separate status.