The Free Speech Defensive for Public Speech

How far does, or should, Free Speech be allowed to go?

If someone says, with a possible likelihood of someone taking action, someone should hurt that fucker, in a Speech, should that be covered by Free Speech?

I would argue no, that the Free Speech Admendment was to allow discussion of political positions, and thus bodily threats should not be protected..

Furthermore, the argument of "the slippery slope" on not allowing these threats is pure hogwash. It is not necessary for public figures to issue threats in their speeches, and the threats can be clearly seen in court.

Indeed, this overly broad interpretation of "Free Speech" is damaging to a democracy, since it is well known that in a tolerant country there still cannot be a tolerance for intolerance. (Tolerance for intolerance is a logical contradiction)

Trumps trial will have nothing to do with free-speech. That fucker helped put in place fake electors and start a riot. I’m willing to bet Jack Smith has so many acts of treason. He can prove in court that they can scream free speech forever and it just won’t matter.

however, I’m pretty much all for free speech. Social media allows people to manipulate the stupid by using it. But in a free country, that’s nobody’s fault but the stupid.

It’s all spelled out right here, Trapper.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

kingstonlake wrote:It’s all spelled out right here, Trapper.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

Thanks kingstonlake, this will help in the discussions.

What I am proposing is that threats of bodily harm or of all felonious incited actions, either overt or covert, which are readily understood in context, in public speech, should be under one of the exceptions to free speech.

I am aware that to some this will sound odd. However as kingstonlake's link shows we already have limits on free speech.

To DWags point, there are limits on free speech on the internet and people have been tried and convicted on them.  The one I remember best is the lady in MA whose posts to her one time boyfriend was a factor in his suicide where she was convicted for that.

None of this is as complicated as the talking heads you watch that want to make it sound like it’s more murky than it is for nothing other than ratings sake.

Look, there are 3 independent things I’m legally allowed to do.

1) drive to Washington DC and park in front of congress then start walking toward the office buildings.
2) buy a crowbar
3) talk to my friends about how someone should put Dianne Feinstein out of her misery with a crowbar.

These are all legal in a vacuum. However, if I do 3, then I do 2, then I do 1, and if I am doing 1 with a crowbar in my hand, I have now done something illegal.

This is not something that is in doubt, no matter how much the people that are pandering for your views and clicks tell you it is.

Unless I have missed something, quite possible of course, public figures have more freedom to threaten harm covertly.

Trapper Gus wrote:Unless I have missed something, quite possible of course, public figures have more freedom to threaten harm covertly.

You’re not missing anything. You just have to have the balls to enforce the restrictions within the constitution.

The last week has showcased the dangerously irresponsible behavior of the two leading Republican candidates for president, Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis. Maybe you didn’t notice or skipped right over it. That would be understandable: Violence-filled rhetoric has become a numbingly regular feature of the GOP playbook.

https://america.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-violent-rhetoric

Wonder what trumpys think of this story?

Joking, they probably want him to serve life cause they racist.