Yet Another Misunderstanding of "Freedom of Speech"

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What's the point of having free speech at all if you don't stand up for it in the tough times?

You don't exactly seem to understand what free speech is.

Free speech is the ability to say what you want without the government arresting you for it.

Free speech is not the ability to say what you want without any repercussions from private individuals whatsoever.

It is not a violation of free speech for your girlfriend to leave you after you call her a whore, nor is it a violation of free speech for your company to fire you after you publicly insult it or cause it financial grief due to something you said.

While not protecting the 1st amendment, it should be upheld.  I don't care if its law, I'm saying someone should stand up for it.

Then why wouldn't it apply to the Attorney General for saying "George Bush is a stupid scumbag who is stupider than a dog.  Ronald Reagan post-alzheimers could do a better job than George Bush."

[DownWithTheLeft]

While not protecting the 1st amendment, it should be upheld.  I don't care if its law, I'm saying someone should stand up for it.

Here, let me quote you the relevant part of first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

Congress.  Not private individuals or companies.  The first amendment imposes no restrictions whatsoever on private individuals or companies.  A non-governmental entity cannot, by definition, violate the first amendment.

You obviously misinterpreted my statement, I am saying applying the right to every day when need be.  For example, the government can't force you to smoke, yet technically a lay person can, the same example applies here.  Just because there is no law doesn't mean its not the right thing to do.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

While not protecting the 1st amendment, it should be upheld.  I don't care if its law, I'm saying someone should stand up for it.

Here, let me quote you the relevant part of first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

Congress.  Not private individuals or companies.  The first amendment imposes no restrictions whatsoever on private individuals or companies.  A non-governmental entity cannot, by definition, violate the first amendment.

You obviously misinterpreted my statement, I am saying applying the right to every day when need be.  For example, the government can't force you to smoke, yet technically a lay person can, the same example applies here.  Just because there is no law doesn't mean its not the right thing to do.

A lay person can't force you to smoke.

And you didn't address my post - you wouldn't be advocating this if Ron Paul's campaign manager said that RP was not fit to be President.

[DownWithTheLeft]

While not protecting the 1st amendment, it should be upheld.  I don't care if its law, I'm saying someone should stand up for it.

Here, let me quote you the relevant part of first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

Congress.  Not private individuals or companies.  The first amendment imposes no restrictions whatsoever on private individuals or companies.  A non-governmental entity cannot, by definition, violate the first amendment.

You obviously misinterpreted my statement, I am saying applying the right to every day when need be.  For example, the government can't force you to smoke, yet technically a lay person can, the same example applies here.  Just because there is no law doesn't mean its not the right thing to do.

A lay person can't force you to smoke.

And you didn't address my post - you wouldn't be advocating this if Ron Paul's campaign manager said that RP was not fit to be President.

It is my understanding that this was not a direct statement against the school (correct me if I'm wrong) but rather something that conflicted with official school position.  That should not get her fired, if she said, "burn the school down it is useless", then I could see the case.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

While not protecting the 1st amendment, it should be upheld.  I don't care if its law, I'm saying someone should stand up for it.

Here, let me quote you the relevant part of first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

Congress.  Not private individuals or companies.  The first amendment imposes no restrictions whatsoever on private individuals or companies.  A non-governmental entity cannot, by definition, violate the first amendment.

You obviously misinterpreted my statement, I am saying applying the right to every day when need be.  For example, the government can't force you to smoke, yet technically a lay person can, the same example applies here.  Just because there is no law doesn't mean its not the right thing to do.

A lay person can't force you to smoke.

And you didn't address my post - you wouldn't be advocating this if Ron Paul's campaign manager said that RP was not fit to be President.

It is my understanding that this was not a direct statement against the school (correct me if I'm wrong) but rather something that conflicted with official school position.  That should not get her fired, if she said, "burn the school down it is useless", then I could see the case.

You're correct.  But it was something that she was told not to discuss at the press conference.