this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
-6 points (25.0% liked)
Progressive Politics, Gun Control, Single Payer Healthcare and Free Abortions for All!
589 readers
4 users here now
We like leftists and liberals.
We want to ban all guns.
We want free healthcare.
We want UBI.
We don't mind being taxed.
We want to give everyone a free abortion!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The first amendment does not and has never protected absolute free speech, so her first amendment rights were not violated.
The first amendment protects citizens from speaking out against government, stifling free speech of others, or from the government restricting religious practices. It is not license to say anything. This has been affirmed in numerous court cases over the entire history of the US.
Why do conservatives constantly forget this? Its almost like they don’t know basic constitutional law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/schenck-v-united-states-defining-the-limits-of-free-speech
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072
While there are established limits to free speech, the Schenck v US rulling was narrow in scope and doesn't apply to a little girl drawling a picture in school. If you're going to cite case law at least find applicable cases and not just pick the 1st one in your search without reading the ruling.
There are many more applicable rulings, mostly to do with how much a school can limit a student's speech, even those do not cover everything, which is what the Supreme Court is for. Why do liberals constantly forget this? It's almost like they don't know constitutional law.
"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."
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Then you misunderstand, because years of legal precedent disagree lol.
Congress shall make no law means the government can’t restrict your right to free speech, not that you’re free to literally say anything. Example: you can’t lay out your plan for assassinating a politician or threaten someone with a credible threat and be protected under the first amendment.
What you’re confused with is the definition of “free speech”. I suggest you research this further.
While certain words are, obscene and hateful speech (or speech inciting violence) is very much not protected under the 1st amendment:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-federal-law-draws-a-line-between-free-speech-and-hate-crimes
Even your linked articlevsays it is. You just cant make specific and clear threats that you have the ability to follow through on.
Then you weren’t reading clearly. Here’s another source directly from the US Courts:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
Obscenities are not protected. Specific words are, the way that they’re used are not always.
One again, freedom of speech is not absolute. There are limitations.
If you still can’t figure it out from this, then there’s just no getting through to you at all. That’s nobody’s problem but your own.
This wasnt an obscenity
Considering what is “obscene” changes in society over time, it could be argued, which is not protected.
I agree that there’s nothing wrong by the image and the child seemed to mean well, but if it is deemed obscene by society (and a court of law agrees), it is very much not protected.
Definition of obscene: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene