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

Yes, much in the same way that we have the right to bear arms (carry guns) but not the right to brandish them, wave them about unsafely or fire randomly while doing so.

 

Speech which is a 'call violence.'

 

What is the speech equivalent of acting in that way with a gun?

 

well one can't go up to a cop and say they're going to harm or kill them, that kinda thing, but freedom of speech is real

 

nope, then you would be silenced by threats of violence

 

You falsely equate the restriction of certain forms of speech to a restrictionon free speech.
Not all speech is free speech.

 

Falsely yelling "fire!!" in a crowded theater.

 

Are you quoting something from a U.S. statute? If so, please reveal it because it is unconstitutional. Inciting a riot is illegal in the U.S. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech but being convicted of it can be a consequence of the speech used to incite. If one tries to incite a riot and fails to incite one, there is no consequence. The speech is fine. The riot is not. You are having trouble with understanding the difference between freedom of speech and the consequences of what one says. Most Americans understand it pretty well. We have lived with our first amendment for more than two centuries.

 

Perfectly legal. But if people evacuate the crowded theater, the speaker could be guilty of disturbing the peace or some other similar crime.

 

And the 1st Amendment would not protect him because his expression placed people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Just like waving around a gun and firing it randomly in the air.

 

The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms AND wave them around and fire them randomly in the air.

 

Yeah, I see what you mean, but the person isn't themselves participating in the riot. So I still argue that it is their SPEECH which is being prosecuted.

 

Speaking of statutes - aren't you aware of the one or two examples of speech codes in certain states such as New York?

 

Ah! Do we have a conflict here? fmw, you seem to believe that it would be prosecutable only IF people evacuate the crowded theater. Tog6, you seem to think that it would be prosecutable regardless, given the potential consequences which it could have led to.

 

No, I equate the restriction of certain forms of speech to a restriction on speech, not a restriction on FREE speech.

That's getting close to what the left says: HATE speech is not FREE speech. If the legal standard is, "not all speech is free speech", then what's stopping hate speech laws? It doesn't matter HOW many speech laws are introduced, the standard, "not all speech is free speech", will STILL always apply.

 

But it would mean that there would be even more freedom of speech for CERTAIN people, right? Mainly those who are making threats. It's also worth noting that people still make threats, even though it is currently illegal. It turns out that many people don't give a damn about the law. Who would've thought?

 

Why do you specify a cop?

 

just an example, that everyone should agree with

 

Well if they agree for a cop, then they shouldn't disagree for a non-cop.

 

It protects his right to say it. It does not protect him from the consequences. It has always been that way.

 

Looks like you disagree.

 

The assumption it would succeed underestimates the resolve of some speakers.

 

You avoided the issue put to you.
I'll let you.

 

Your question:
Does the 'right to free speech' actually exist in the US?
As such, your equation means nothing.

 

DON'T let me avoid it! What issue?