re: Tommy Robinson Case

quote:

---

there may be a concept of "free speech" broader than that set forth in the First Amendment?

---

I'll bite. What concept?

quote:

---

Well, I was thinking "Muslims," since they have not yet been convicted, but we can use "pedophiles."

---

The confrontation occurred after they were convicted and sentenced

So "pedophiles" is not only appropriate, but thoroughly descriptive

quote:

---

I'll bite. What concept?

---

I think I have already explained, but I will try again. This may be too abstract/esoteric for many on this Forum, which tends to be literal to the point of suffering from collective Aspergers.

The concept of "free speech" predates the Constitution, and it is very broad. In fact, it is far broader than the "speech" protection provided by the First Amendment.

Conceptually, you have the right to say anything you want, though that right may well come into conflict with the rights of others (e.g. the right of you employer to limit your speech while on "his time.") You can stand on YOUR property, on YOUR time, and say almost any damned stupid thing that you want to say. At the same time, NOTHING says that you are protected from potential consequences arising from your speech.

The First Amendment protection is MUCH narrower than that. It simply says that the GOVERNMENT cannot stop you from engaging in political speech.

Put another way, the Kneelers were indeed engaging in "free speech." But it was not the type of "free speech" protected by the First Amendment.

quote:

---

The First Amendment protection is MUCH narrower than that. It simply says that the GOVERNMENT cannot stop you from engaging in political speech.

---

Boy you’re right. That’s way too abstract/esoteric for my Aspergers brain.

Jesus is comin...and he ain't backing down

UK is a Muslim shithole

Yea us knuckledragers get it. We are free to say what we want but consequences can ensue.

quote:

---

Or are you one of those literalists who who cannot accept that there may be a concept of "free speech" broader than that set forth in the First Amendment?

---

Can you not read? I stated it was government suppression and punishment of speech. I never said UK had 1st Amendment rights. The point is you brought up the NFL as an attempt to show the board is hypocritical. The board is criticising government punishment of speech. Instead of putting words in my mouth and assuming I didn't understand your post...perhaps realize what the argument is actually about.

Good lord, judges must have fun with you.

We put our asses on boats and left for a reason. 400 years later and they're still up to the same shite. Overbearing govt enforcing their view of morality. frick the Queen.

You miss the point. The judge said no one can talk about Tommy Robinson after he had been convicted and sentenced. He's effectively been disappeared by a Western government.