If free speech is in the eye of the beholder it isn't free speech. This is an American site. The First Amendment applies to speech in the US.
Uh, no.
This is exhibit #1 in how you do not understand the 1st Amendment.
Did you know that there is no specific law against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?
The justice who wrote that opinion used the scenario as an example of innapropriate speech.
Someone doing that falsely would probably be charged with causing a panic - and possibly manslaughter if it caused a crowd crush - but the speech is not a crime in itself.
1st Amendment says restricts the government, not private individuals.
I am president of a club in which one our rules is "no profanity".
The government can't prosecute you for cursing, but my club can and will restrict your membership priveleges, up to and including expulsion, if you curse.
I didn't claim free speech is absolute but that it allows the expression of views which can offend others. It doesn't, for example, permit the incitement of crimes (which is what Trump could have been charged with in Jan 6 when he incited an insurrection. Congress found he did so).
A private club, which members choose to belong to, is not a public place. This site is, which is why the First Amendment would apply in the US. Your comparison is not valid.
Under Trump it is imposing regime change in other nations by force. That is quite apart from killing foreign nationals in international waters for offences for which they haven't been charged and for which the penalty isn't death. None of this is occurring according to either US law, which requires the approval of Congress for implementing acts of war, or international law, which opposes the invasion of other nations to depose their governments. Trump is becoming another Putin.
Grow a brain. The only countries who recognized Maduro as the president were China, Russia, Iran and their ilk. The US, Canada, EU and all other countries allied with the US recognize don’t. So all we did was go into Venezuela to extradite an indicted fugitive.
The UN articles do not sanction the right of one country to remove by force the leadership of another country unless they have been attacked. If that were so Russia (or any other country) would have been justified to remove the US insurrectionist of January 6. He was illegitimately holding to power. If he had fled the US he could have been treated as a fugitive. Thanks to Merrick Garland and the SCOTUS you are now ruled by a criminal.
There was a warrant for Maduro in New York dating back to the Biden Administration. The rest of your argument loses its validity.
US law does not extend to other sovereign countries. That is why Biden didn't invade Venezuela to arrest Maduro. It took this gangster administration to do that.
U.S. government is an international mafia along with Israel. I hope the next administration attempts to restore the U.S. reputation and imprisons much of the current administration including Trump.
I didn't claim free speech is absolute but that it allows the expression of views which can offend others. It doesn't, for example, permit the incitement of crimes (which is what Trump could have been charged with in Jan 6 when he incited an insurrection. Congress found he did so).
A private club, which members choose to belong to, is not a public place. This site is, which is why the First Amendment would apply in the US. Your comparison is not valid.
You missed my argument entirely, which I knew you would, since you know nothing about America.
The First Amendment says that Congress can pass no law abridging freedom of speech.
It has since been incorporated against state governments.
The Brojos are neither Congress or state governments.
I didn't claim free speech is absolute but that it allows the expression of views which can offend others. It doesn't, for example, permit the incitement of crimes (which is what Trump could have been charged with in Jan 6 when he incited an insurrection. Congress found he did so).
A private club, which members choose to belong to, is not a public place. This site is, which is why the First Amendment would apply in the US. Your comparison is not valid.
You missed my argument entirely, which I knew you would, since you know nothing about America.
The First Amendment says that Congress can pass no law abridging freedom of speech.
It has since been incorporated against state governments.
The Brojos are neither Congress or state governments.
Stick with something you know.
The laws Congress passes apply to American citizens. Hence it does not entitle the government to restrict beyond what the law permits what can be publicly expressed by American citizens or those in the US. Free speech is not the preserve of governments but individuals; it is ensured by governments through its laws. That's what the First Amendment does. It grants rights. They are exercised here.
If the First Amendment did not apply then this site would not be able to permit the expression of views that occur here - including yours or mine. We would be in China, N Korea or Russia.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I didn't claim free speech is absolute but that it allows the expression of views which can offend others. It doesn't, for example, permit the incitement of crimes (which is what Trump could have been charged with in Jan 6 when he incited an insurrection. Congress found he did so).
More proof that you don't understand either America or the 1A.
Brandenburg v Ohio is still in effect.
Read it and weep.
It doesn't apply to J6, because Trump didn't incite crimes.
The laws Congress passes apply to American citizens. Hence it does not entitle the government to restrict beyond what the law permits what can be publicly expressed by American citizens or those in the US. Free speech is not the preserve of governments but individuals; it is ensured by governments through its laws. That's what the First Amendment does. It grants rights. They are exercised here.
The 1A does not apply to private individuals or corporations.
Maybe you have something like that in NZ, but I assure you that you are out of your depth concerning American constitutional law.
If you tried such an argumentnin the U.S., you would be laughed out of court.
I didn't claim free speech is absolute but that it allows the expression of views which can offend others. It doesn't, for example, permit the incitement of crimes (which is what Trump could have been charged with in Jan 6 when he incited an insurrection. Congress found he did so).
More proof that you don't understand either America or the 1A.
Brandenburg v Ohio is still in effect.
Read it and weep.
It doesn't apply to J6, because Trump didn't incite crimes.
Trump did incite crimes. That is what an insurrection is. Congress found he committed an insurrection on Jan 6. It was only because he wasn't actually charged with a criminal offence (thanks, Merrick Garland) that he escaped a conviction for those crimes.
Trump did incite crimes. That is what an insurrection is. Congress found he committed an insurrection on Jan 6. It was only because he wasn't actually charged with a criminal offence (thanks, Merrick Garland) that he escaped a conviction for those crimes.
If he wasn't charged, then he didn't commit any crime.
None of the J6 people were charged with insurrection.
There was no evidence.
You are clueless about the U.S. law, our Constitution, and America.
The laws Congress passes apply to American citizens. Hence it does not entitle the government to restrict beyond what the law permits what can be publicly expressed by American citizens or those in the US. Free speech is not the preserve of governments but individuals; it is ensured by governments through its laws. That's what the First Amendment does. It grants rights. They are exercised here.
The 1A does not apply to private individuals or corporations.
Maybe you have something like that in NZ, but I assure you that you are out of your depth concerning American constitutional law.
If you tried such an argumentnin the U.S., you would be laughed out of court.
What you fail to understand is that the Amendment constraining the power of the government and states to abridge free speech allows free speech. It effectively says the government can't stop you expressing your views.
But the issue here isn't simply the First Amendment (which applies because this is an American site), it is the basic principle of what free speech means anywhere that term is used. It means views can be expressed that are unpopular and may offend or are ill-informed or even ignorant. The only restriction is incitement to a crime. This site has included as amongst its restrictions the expression of unequivocally racist views or personal attacks on other posters (which it does not apply consistently).
Trump did incite crimes. That is what an insurrection is. Congress found he committed an insurrection on Jan 6. It was only because he wasn't actually charged with a criminal offence (thanks, Merrick Garland) that he escaped a conviction for those crimes.
If he wasn't charged, then he didn't commit any crime.
None of the J6 people were charged with insurrection.
There was no evidence.
You are clueless about the U.S. law, our Constitution, and America.
Congress disagrees with you. It found Jan 6 was an insurrection and he incited it.
The 1A does not apply to private individuals or corporations.
Maybe you have something like that in NZ, but I assure you that you are out of your depth concerning American constitutional law.
If you tried such an argumentnin the U.S., you would be laughed out of court.
What you fail to understand is that the Amendment constraining the power of the government and states to abridge free speech allows free speech. It effectively says the government can't stop you expressing your views.
But the issue here isn't simply the First Amendment (which applies because this is an American site), it is the basic principle of what free speech means anywhere that term is used. It means views can be expressed that are unpopular and may offend or are ill-informed or even ignorant. The only restriction is incitement to a crime. This site has included as amongst its restrictions the expression of unequivocally racist views or personal attacks on other posters (which it does not apply consistently).
Well then, what the hell are we arguing about?
I agree that this site can make its own speech rules - and not enforce them if they wush.
Trump is breaking international law. In a democratic society every man is created equal. So if Trump can break international law then it is also just for every American to break the laws of their own country- for example to kill a neighbour
Under Trump it is imposing regime change in other nations by force. That is quite apart from killing foreign nationals in international waters for offences for which they haven't been charged and for which the penalty isn't death. None of this is occurring according to either US law, which requires the approval of Congress for implementing acts of war, or international law, which opposes the invasion of other nations to depose their governments. Trump is becoming another Putin.
Well this guy that is so called El Presidenti is incorporating hate. He should be impeached and removed immediately. There is nothing positive going on under this guy. He is a hateful embarrassment to our country. I served in uniform and have serious disability because of it and I did not serve too see our country turn into something we in uniform tried to stop.
For example a week ago my wife and I are driving and running errands I am cut off beep my horn at the guy. At the turn I am talking to her this guy is at my window screaming profanity. He cut me off I was simply letting him know hay you almost hit us. The hostile reaction not necessary from him. His bumper sticker and propaganda on his vehicle what do you think it was?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.