Is controversal speech protected free speech? (employment, suspect, Brown, March)

[Steve-C]

Originally Posted by JOinGA

Trump's charges from Jack Smith include conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. This is not a case based on one speech.

And all of it leftist lawfare, nothing more..

[Steve-C]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

1) It should not be blocked by the govt. per the constitution but limited in that you cannot incite violence etc. by having say...a fund raising party to raise money to send to a terrorist group.

However,

2) In recent years people have tried to erode this by grossly stretching and warping the definitions. For example, someone that is against trans men in womens spaces and sports is then labeled as "hate" and then you see government organizations limit or prevent free speech under the guise of it fomenting violence.

The battle cry of "I don't feel safe" because they don't agree with you, and then demanding they be silenced has been a common tactic in recent years.

Glad you brought up the democrat/marxist "hate speech" construct, just another anti-freedom idea from the degenerate Borg..

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

Meaning pro-palestinian protests or Neo-Nazis ranting or protesting. Are or should speech that many may find objectionable be allowed as free speech and why?

Speech that threatens violence against a person or group is not protected by the Constitution.

Otherwise, all speech is protected.

[Bruce Holbrook]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

Speech that threatens violence against a person or group is not protected by the Constitution.

Otherwise, all speech is protected.

Except for a few specific exceptions, threatening or iflammatory speech is actually legal. Under the Brandenburg Test (from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969), the speech must be both intended to and likely to produce imminent lawless action.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

[AnywhereElse]

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

Meaning pro-palestinian protests or Neo-Nazis ranting or protesting. Are or should speech that many may find objectionable be allowed as free speech and why?

Free speech MEANS free speech. Who cares what many may find objectionable? Say you want to support Israels' inhumane behavior toward the Palestinians, most likely due to your believing that they are God's chosen people, thus you must support them, or say you have an issue with the race or religion of the Palestinians, say many do or maybe just powerful people do, so you want to take away my right to free speech, because you do not agree with me. You know, Biden has already tried something similar, and it did not fly, "censorship".

https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791."

"abridging the freedom of speech" To "abridge" means to curtain a right or a freedom

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

Meaning pro-palestinian protests or Neo-Nazis ranting or protesting. Are or should speech that many may find objectionable be allowed as free speech and why?

Yes but the Constitution is a contract and like any contract if one party or side decides to break the contract then it is only worth the paper it was written on.

Go to a school or university or on media in some places and try to speak a opposing view to far-left ideology like trans in women sports for example and watch how quick you are verbally and maybe physically assaulted into silence by the far-left. This is predominant now from the far-left.

For the most part the liberals, the moderates and the right allow and defend opposing views, it is the far-left that are against free speech and then hide behind the right to it when they are called out.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Bruce Holbrook

Except for a few specific exceptions, threatening or iflammatory speech is actually legal. Under the Brandenburg Test (from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969), the speech must be both intended to and likely to produce imminent lawless action.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

Right but there are two levels to this.

1) Being able to criminally charge someone, like you gracefully produced links to for which we should all appreciate that.

2) Meeting some (vastly) lesser standard and thus creating an opportunity of pretense and thus limit someones free speech because it's "threatening".

For example, describes questions and ideals as "threatening".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdrtyVMcH9o

P.S. Let's not confuse the turd in this video with a real liberal. Unfortunately, this has somehow become accepted by some and they even target actual (old school) real liberals like Martina Navratilova. You can just claim "threatened" by other viewpoints to then use people to silence opposition. Um, wrong think? Yep. ANTIFA and these weenies are facists, branding doesn't change that.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

Meaning pro-palestinian protests or Neo-Nazis ranting or protesting. Are or should speech that many may find objectionable be allowed as free speech and why?

In most countries mere protesting and free speech crosses the line in relation to criminality when it encourages or supports acts of violence or terrorism in relation to proscribed terrorist groups.

There is a difference between supporting the plight of the people of Palestine and actively encouraging Islamic fundamentalist violence or fund raising in relation to such groups, or planning terrorist attacks and the laws in most western countries make it very clear where free speech ends and criminality begins.

[scarabchuck]

Originally Posted by Leo58

What do you mean by “protected”? The government may not interfere with your free speech. But your employer, a social media platform or any other private business, may.

Exactly. Just as Rashida Tlaib, and her supporters found out.

[Vector1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWv5jk8uqtg