Antifa: need to know

[GMDino]

(08-19-2017, 01:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, it's not that you said they do NOT have the same rights, it's that you do not WANT them to have the same rights. As evidenced by you having "zerio problem" with other citizens taking away their rights.

I think Nazi ideology needs to be eradicated, too, but not at the expense of their rights as afforded them by the US Constitution.

Oh heavens no!

I've have said...repeatedly they have a right to free speech under the constitution!

The government cannot stop them.

Citizens can try to.

Private places can try to.

Privately owned companies can try to.

Employers can try to.

And if what they are saying is Nazi fueled hate speech I encourage everyone who can legally stop or shout them down to go right ahead.

Someone on the boards awhile back said people don't understand what "free speech" means.  Sadly I think that is still true.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/not-many-exceptions-to-free-speech-guarantee/

Quote:Yes, the First Amendment applies only to government action, but that’s where censorship threats typically come from. Neighbors and private citizens can’t limit our speech, and bosses can do it in the workplace only because we have a contractual relationship with our employers. As Thomas Paine would have noted, we are born free, and the scope of our liberty is enormous.

Today in America, more than 312 million people will say exactly what they want to say about politics, policies and the world around them. Not a single person will be jailed for the words he or she utters.


Today that same 312 million will pray to the God of their choice (or to none at all), and suffer no consequences.

Today several thousand newspapers and millions of websites and bloggers based in the U.S. will write about what is going on in their communities and in some cases, how they feel about it. Nobody will end the day in jail because of what he’s written.

The power and scope of the First Amendment is extraordinary and we do it a disservice when we suggest that the extraordinarily rare exceptions are the norm.

From Goudie’s column: “Child pornography, defamation and inciting crimes are just a few examples of speech that has been determined to be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”

Just a few examples? There’s no massive laundry list of exceptions to the First Amendment. The examples cited by Goudie largely deal with criminal activity, not pure speech.

Of course, you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. You also can’t step to the front of the theater in the middle of a showing of the latest installment of “Twilight” and yell “Long Live the First Amendment” over and over again. In either case, you’d be taken into custody because of your disruptive or threatening action.

Kiddie porn can be suppressed because it hurts children. Speech made in planning a criminal act is punishable as a conspiracy.

And although you can sue someone for defamation, America’s news media enjoy substantial protection under the First Amendment.
Essentially you can prevail in a libel suit only if the statement is false and intended to harm (see “Theater, Yelling Fire In”).

Protesters in the Occupy movement are being arrested for trespassing and related acts, but not for their message.

It’s an important distinction. If we accept as conventional wisdom that free-speech rights are often limited, then free expression doesn’t seem so sacrosanct. Though conduct related to speech can be punished, ideas are largely inviolate. That foundation of freedom has served this nation well.

Everyone has the right to free speech...even if they are telling over each other.