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

When did I say the right to an abortion “can’t be taken away”? Can you show me the exact post you’re referring to?

 

LOL!!

What a great use of circular logic!

 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ing-from-the-presidency-let-us-count-the-ways
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trump-businesses-empire-tied-presidency-100496

One can go on and on.

NO other president has done this - it is uniquely Trump that the president can use presidential power to so benefit his personal wealth, even when taxpayers are paying the freight.

 

I'll rephrase: You're pretending that just because something is a RIGHT it is good and therefore SHOULD NOT be taken away. You're wrong.

 

Yeah, but they hate loosing elections even more I imagine.

 

I can only assume that you mean 2020, not 2002. Maybe 2002 is the year that you escaped, and that was on your mind!

 

You don't believe in the whole 'silent majority' thing? I've never understood why people would lie to pollsters.

 

Yep. That's sounds like @WillReadmore!

 

I’m not pretending at all. I actually do believe women should be able to have a choice when it comes to their own body.

 

You said, "you’re for taking away a woman’s right. You’re extreme." - You just said "RIGHT" without specifying what the right is. I think that you did this to make it sound worse than what it would have if you had expanded, because taking away someone's RIGHT sounds really bad. So are you saying that ANY right shouldn't be taken away no matter what the right is, including possible future rights which may be determined by an activist Supreme Court?

 

Nope. It was said in the context of abortion.

You’re going to hurt your brain overthinking too much...<sarcasm off>

 

Well by that standard, free speech exists in every country in the world!

 

Not true. The first amendment only prevents government from limiting speech. It doesn't protect the speaker from the consequences of what he or she said. Nor does it affect the private sector. Government limits speech is most countries.

 

By what means? By laws against speech, right? Laws which have consequences. Laws which the US has. How ELSE does a government limit speech?

 

Freedom of speech is unlimited in the U.S. The government cannot punish someone for speaking. There are no laws against speech. There are laws against things like inciting a riot or defamation. One can use speech to engage in these illegal activities but they face consequences for those crimes, not the speech involved.

The idea of the founders was that people should be able to criticize the government without repercussions. Nobody is punished for criticizing government here. That isn't true in most countries. You can be poisoned, for instance, if you criticize Vladimir Putin or be sent to a prison camp for criticizing Kim Jong Un. I don't have to tell you how a government limits speech. You already know.

 

What is the "illegal activity" in "inciting a riot or defamation" if not the "speech involved?"

 

I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

 

Do you agree that the "illegal activity" is separate from the consequences which stem from the illegal activity? When someone incites a riot, the riot hasn't happened yet has it? When someone defames someone, the negative consequences/damages of that haven't necessarily happened, have they?

 

I don't like to argue or deal with 20 questions. Sorry.

 

That's fine - it just means that your claim that "freedom of speech is unlimited in the U.S" remains unsupported. There ARE laws against certain speech. That means that there is a RESTRICTION of speech in the US.

 

No. The libel laws only allow a private party to sue you for damages if damages can be proven. You only have to cover those damages. The government itself cannot restrict, regulate or sue you for your speech however slanderous it may be.

Incitement to violence is different in that you are explicitly encouraging it to the point that you are complicit in the act itself.

 

Libel laws ARE the government aren't they?

Regardless if no "ACT" comes out from the inciting speech?

 

The laws only regulate the process by which citizens can settle these disputes and resulting harm or loss of property. It is not designed to regulate the speech itself.

QUOTE="chris155au, post: 1072034666, member: 74987"]
Regardless if no "ACT" comes out from the inciting speech?[/QUOTE]

I don't know enough about those laws to comment further.

 

The "resulting harm" is the key here. What's stopping EMOTIONAL harm from being included? Wouldn't that make way for hate speech laws?

 

But you can't find a law prohibiting speech of any kind. Such a law would be unconstitutional.