re: ‘Free Speech Right Not Absolute’ – Obama Judge Tanya Chutkan Delivers Mixed Ruling

quote:

---

So the classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theater should be completely legal regardless of the damage it could cause by people stampeding to get out?

---

Based on the First Amendment? Yes.

Could their be civil liability against you if you did so for harm caused to individuals? Sure, but not criminal. That's an unpopular opinion but I don't care.

It's criminal, dumbass.

Sorry. I'll stop posting tonight.

quote:

---

guess libel, defamation, and certain security laws don’t exist. They must all be unconstitutional.

---

In those instances, the speaker wasn't gagged right?

quote:

---

In those instances, the speaker wasn't gagged right?

---

Trump is not gagged either. He can say whatever he wants, but if he violates the rules, there are consequences.

I love the “let’s play dumb as attorneys and pretend that this is all normal stuff.”

The judge then needs to put a gag order on both sides and aggressively enforce on both. If Trump cannot discuss discovery and evidence, then the government must refrain from ANY leaks which they most assuredly do.

Unfortunately most appellate courts are going to avoid dealing with cases until there is a verdict. I don't know of any situations where they would insert themselves into a pretrial order

quote:

---

Why can someone be prosecuted for bomb or other terroristic threats?

---

solely for making a threat I don’t think they should be. You can have greater scrutiny placed on you for statements but until you take concrete actions to follow through on those threats that should not be a crime. Words are not violence.

quote:

---

Why is stalking alone without trespass a crime?

---

that’s a different topic from speech.

quote:

---

Why are people prosecuted for threatening public officials?[\quote] why indeed?
[quote]What about noise ordinances or disturbing the peace

---

Again a different topic from pure speech.

I have no issue with you disagreeing with me or thinking I’m wrong. I’d say 99% of people would agree with you. That doesn’t change my opinion on the matter though. Criminalizing speech is wrong and unconstitutional.

Here is what you're missing:

quote:

---

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

---

The first Amendment IS absolute. It clearly says "Congress shall make no law", and the Constitution means it!

But, the "freedom of speech," referenced in the First Amendment is not an absolute. And that is what the Judge said, the "right to free speech is not absolute"

English law in force at the time of signing the Constitution already recognized certain limits to what one can say, and allowed governments to place restrictions on speech as long as such restrictions are content neutral. Many centuries before our Constitution was written, it was recognized that Freedom of Speech may be restricted to protect national security or public order.

So, the Government cannot abridge the Freedom of Speech, but unabridged Freedom of Speech still comes with its own restrictions and limits.

It appears the table is being set for mass social unrest…..they will not stop until they are confronted.