• MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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”

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        3 hours ago

        If it has a limit, it’s not free

        “Free bread sticks”

        “I’ll take 100”

        “Um… No. You can’t have that many.”

        “iF tHeRe’S a LiMiT iT’s NoT fReE!”

        • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 hours ago

            If you say unlimited and then put a limit on it

            When did the American Constitution promise “Unlimited Speech”?

            • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              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.

        • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

        • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions.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.

          • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            56 minutes ago

            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 🤔

            • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              44 minutes ago

              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.

        • MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

          • ReasonableHat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 hour ago

            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.