Is this freedom of speech?

[politicaladdict]

Does freedom of speech involve hate slurs and obscenity.

Maybe someone can help me out on this.

I had a talk earlier in one of my threads about the first amendment.

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

When I pointed out it was liberals who want to violate free-speech with the fairness-doctrine and localism, and will point the differences in my opinion.


So maybe someone can help me on this. Which is free-speech and not?


1: Gays having the right marry.

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

3: Flag burning.

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

And some liberals seem to want to interfere on regulating free-speech.

The fairness-doctrine would(not put someone off air because of obscenity) but to limit and regulate free-speech period especially putting restrictions on conservative privately owned radio stations.

Against the right to have handguns or really any gun.


And why when someone whines it's free-speech to burn a flag when our founding fathers didn't allow this kind of stuff.

There the ones who made the constitution so wasn't it them who defined free-speech.

It seems people like to say it's free-speech but don't care what the founding fathers defined as free-speech, especially when there the ones who made the constitution in the first place.



I'm just curious if anyone thinks there should still be a limit to what free-speech is despite the first amendment that defines it as dissent or free to express opinion(without obscene gesture) and to change our government on other issues.

Example, does an Anti Iraq-War protester have the right to protest at funerals of dead soldiers with those stupid Westboro Baptist members saying stuff like "your son is burning in hell"?

[RI]

Gay marriage has nothing to do with free speech, nor do guns, really.

[politicaladdict]

Gay marriage has nothing to do with free speech, nor do guns, really.

What? I thought liberals and democrats complain that gay having the right to marry is a right even when it's not officially!



The right to bear arms is a right because it says so directly in the constitution in the second amendment that's about to bear arms. It's what's defined as free-speech coming to certain issues.

[Хahar 🤔]

Gay marriage has nothing to do with free speech, nor do guns, really.

What? I thought liberals and democrats complain that gay having the right to marry is a right even when it's not officially!



The right to bear arms is a right because it says so directly in the constitution in the first amendment that's about freedom. It's what's defined as free-speech coming to certain issues.

This is one of the least coherent things I've ever read.

[politicaladdict]

Gay marriage has nothing to do with free speech, nor do guns, really.

What? I thought liberals and democrats complain that gay having the right to marry is a right even when it's not officially!



The right to bear arms is a right because it says so directly in the constitution in the first amendment that's about freedom. It's what's defined as free-speech coming to certain issues.

This is one of the least coherent things I've ever read.

Ooops... my mistake, it was the second amendment. Still the constitution.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Gay marriage has nothing to do with free speech, nor do guns, really.

What? I thought liberals and democrats complain that gay having the right to marry is a right even when it's not officially!



The right to bear arms is a right because it says so directly in the constitution in the first amendment that's about freedom. It's what's defined as free-speech coming to certain issues.

This is one of the least coherent things I've ever read.

Ooops... my mistake, it was the second amendment. Still the constitution.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with free speech. Neither does gay marriage for that matter. Try again.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

To answer the original question, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are protected free speech. That means you can not be arrested for as such. It doesn't mean there can't be other consequences from the private sector and public pressure. #1 has absolutely nothing to do with free speech whatsoever, #4 is an issue of public endangerment, and in #6 the issue is not freedom of speech but public disruption.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with free speech, nor do guns, really.

What? I thought liberals and democrats complain that gay having the right to marry is a right even when it's not officially!



The right to bear arms is a right because it says so directly in the constitution in the first amendment that's about freedom. It's what's defined as free-speech coming to certain issues.

This is one of the least coherent things I've ever read.

LOL Yes. The best part is "liberals and democrats complain that gay having the right to marry is a right even when it's not officially!"

"when it's not officially"? What the fuck does that mean?

[minionofmidas]

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

Kicking people is usually battery. Not a violation of free-speech, but still illegal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you do, in America. But not in Germany.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Does this thread have to do anything with Hitler? If not, I'm not interested.

[k-onmmunist]

Didnt really understand what on Earth you were banging on about. But yes, I would defend the right to say all those.

[WillK]

Does freedom of speech involve hate slurs and obscenity.

Maybe

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its not a first amendment issue but attacking people for their political expression is certainly anti-free speach.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really a speech issue.  Its more of a freedom of association issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably violates local public disturbance laws.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seems like a freedom of speach issue to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If done for malicious purposes then it would not be protected speech.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably slander.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most local jurisdictions have laws against disturbing the peace.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too vague -- what was the context of the comment? Getting in trouble with whom?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fairness doctrine applies to the use of government broadcast licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a speech issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you sure they didnt?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There have always been limits to what free speech is.

[Badger]

Does freedom of speech involve hate slurs and obscenity.

Maybe someone can help me out on this.

I had a talk earlier in one of my threads about the first amendment.

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

When I pointed out it was liberals who want to violate free-speech with the fairness-doctrine and localism, and will point the differences in my opinion.


So maybe someone can help me on this. Which is free-speech and not?


1: Gays having the right marry.

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

3: Flag burning.

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

And some liberals seem to want to interfere on regulating free-speech.

The fairness-doctrine would(not put someone off air because of obscenity) but to limit and regulate free-speech period especially putting restrictions on conservative privately owned radio stations.

Against the right to have handguns or really any gun.


And why when someone whines it's free-speech to burn a flag when our founding fathers didn't allow this kind of stuff.

There the ones who made the constitution so wasn't it them who defined free-speech.

It seems people like to say it's free-speech but don't care what the founding fathers defined as free-speech, especially when there the ones who made the constitution in the first place.



I'm just curious if anyone thinks there should still be a limit to what free-speech is despite the first amendment that defines it as dissent or free to express opinion(without obscene gesture) and to change our government on other issues.

Example, does an Anti Iraq-War protester have the right to protest at funerals of dead soldiers with those stupid Westboro Baptist members saying stuff like "your son is burning in hell"?

Number 5 & 7 have everything to do with freedom of speech. It's the effect of other people exercsing THEOR freedom of speech when a conservative (or Imus) says something patently stupid, and their idiotic comments lose in  thje marketplace of ideas. Conservatives mistake people criticizing ignorant or racist things they say as somehow curtailing their freedom of speech. To them the freedom sof speech equates agreeing with whatever they say.

[Free Palestine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing to do with free speech.  They see me trollin...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 yeah, bitch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Also, while 2, 3, 5, and 7 may be in poor taste, they are legally protected free speech. However, the fact that you cannot be punished for these things through the law does not mean that these actions don't have consequences. For example, employers can and often do ban their workers from using profanity on the job or making disparaging remarks about the company, its customers, or its products.

[Vepres]

Also, while 2, 3, 5, and 7 may be in poor taste, they are legally protected free speech. However, the fact that you cannot be punished for these things through the law does not mean that these actions don't have consequences. For example, employers can and often do ban their workers from using profanity on the job or making disparaging remarks about the company, its customers, or its products.

[Free Palestine]

I suggest you go read a book or something and form your own views on history, instead of copy/pasting from right-wing pundits.

[Vosem]

Does freedom of speech involve hate slurs and obscenity.

Maybe someone can help me out on this.

I had a talk earlier in one of my threads about the first amendment.

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

When I pointed out it was liberals who want to violate free-speech with the fairness-doctrine and localism, and will point the differences in my opinion.


So maybe someone can help me on this. Which is free-speech and not?


1: Gays having the right marry.

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

3: Flag burning.

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

And some liberals seem to want to interfere on regulating free-speech.

The fairness-doctrine would(not put someone off air because of obscenity) but to limit and regulate free-speech period especially putting restrictions on conservative privately owned radio stations.

Against the right to have handguns or really any gun.


And why when someone whines it's free-speech to burn a flag when our founding fathers didn't allow this kind of stuff.

There the ones who made the constitution so wasn't it them who defined free-speech.

It seems people like to say it's free-speech but don't care what the founding fathers defined as free-speech, especially when there the ones who made the constitution in the first place.



I'm just curious if anyone thinks there should still be a limit to what free-speech is despite the first amendment that defines it as dissent or free to express opinion(without obscene gesture) and to change our government on other issues.

Example, does an Anti Iraq-War protester have the right to protest at funerals of dead soldiers with those stupid Westboro Baptist members saying stuff like "your son is burning in hell"?

1st: No
2nd: Yes
3rd: Yes
4th: No
5th: No
6th: Yes
7th: No