It was both. They were advertised as free, they are free, but there are limits despite them being free
Nothing free is unlimited.
Alternatively Americans have no freedoms at all because they all have limits.
Freedom of Travel? You can’t walk through a military base.
Freedom of Religion? No one is going to recognize your Jedi holy day. (Not to mention the government not recognizing the religious right to an abortion from Jews or TST.)
Freedom of commerce? You’re not allowed to purchase heroin or import things from Cuba.
Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.
Fair enough. I think the discussion ends there; I cannot use reason to dissuade you from a position that you clearly did not use reason to get yourself into.
The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.
No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them
The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. (Karl Popper)
If it has a limit, it’s not free
If I can’t do a Nazi salute, then I can’t say “I want to shoot Donald Trump in the face”
“Free bread sticks”
“I’ll take 100”
“Um… No. You can’t have that many.”
“iF tHeRe’S a LiMiT iT’s NoT fReE!”
Don’t be pedantic. A limit would be “free breadsticks only if you decide to pray to our god in front of us.”
If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it, that is illegal, as Verizon and AT&T found out in court
When did the American Constitution promise “Unlimited Speech”?
It doesn’t. It says free, meaning unencumbered. The breadstick analogy was for unlimited not free so it was disingenuous and I was countering it.
It was both. They were advertised as free, they are free, but there are limits despite them being free
Nothing free is unlimited.
Alternatively Americans have no freedoms at all because they all have limits.
Freedom of Travel? You can’t walk through a military base.
Freedom of Religion? No one is going to recognize your Jedi holy day. (Not to mention the government not recognizing the religious right to an abortion from Jews or TST.)
Freedom of commerce? You’re not allowed to purchase heroin or import things from Cuba.
Bruh… your pedantry started this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Society and laws are at the mercy of those who are in control. Right now in the US it is the Trump administration, but I remember Barack Obama saying, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,” emphasizing his ability to take executive action without waiting for Congress to push his agenda forward.
That’s not freedom.
So should there be any penalty for lying under oath?
No, because it is unconstitutional to put someone under oath
By definition, it means a solemn promise that is beholden to a deity therefore it is illegitimate in court and law by the First Amendment.
You probably also think it should not be legal to kill people that break into your house to steal your TV.
Fair enough. I think the discussion ends there; I cannot use reason to dissuade you from a position that you clearly did not use reason to get yourself into.
Scream “Fire” at a theater. Obviously you cannot.
The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime.
So you are saying there is a limitation
So there no free speech afterall 🤔
No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them
The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal.
Nah.