[enasseneiff]

This is true.

We just turn it around. Freedom not to have to deal with Fred Phelps and his ilk.

[mikeydesignzinc]

Yep - it's liberals' turn now to tell conservatives, if they don't like things the way they are in America, they can leave.


(I don't seriously think that - neither side has any right to tell the other side to leave for thinking critically)

[DJElizardo]

I'm proud that we do deal with him, and can handle it like men.

Men tell Phelps to **** off at the border. Get out, stay out, never return.

Being too ***** to deal with the bastard and pretending it's being manly.

[UltraSearchs]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0428/p02s08-usju.html

[Glamyclitlemi]

Quote:
However, the court allowed the ban on displaying the swastika to stand, barring any flags or clothing with the symbol on it.

Agree.

[TeLMgNva]

I'm assuming that the case for the FCC to be given the power to regulate speech on public airwaves has already been decided, and that the 1st amendment was examined and found wanting as an argument against it.

[Crilosajsamq]

Well, I know that the FCC has been banning things on the airwaves for years which I'm allowed to say in a public place.

Seems to me that if the Court was going to find this unconstitutional they would have done so by now.

[Petrushkaukrop]

Arguably, according to what I've read, the new regulations are much more likely to cover protected speech (in the context of broadcasting) than the old ones.

[posimoka]

I agree in general; I don't necessarily agree that SCOTUS was wrong wrt the law.

The First Amendment doesn't provide for all the speech protections we should have; I believe it just guarantees all the ones we must have.

[dicemets]

I agree in general; I don't necessarily agree that SCOTUS was wrong wrt the law.

The "law" says simply that the government shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Seems pretty clear to me.

[FelixQY]

I don't think libel should be outlawed.

[wmcelesta]

Whose law?

[herrdwq]

I'm on the fence about death threats.

You should have started with conspiracy.

EDIT: goddamn xposted me

[Sillaycheg]

By the way, Kuci: I think that all of these examples are of unconstitutional laws, if you simply READ the Constitution.

That's why it's obvious to me that pretending you're following what the Constitution says, rather than what you wish it says is pretty silly.

Now, the latter might be a better way to actually run a legal system. But it really is hypocrisy.

[Buhoutsoupfap]

I don't disagree with you. And I commend the US for holding a much better line on free speech than Canada has, in certain areas.

But I don't necessarily agree that it's more egregious to have fined a dozen or so people over 40 years for some fairly extreme political views than it is to regularly fine networks for showing people saying things I say every day.

We've chosen a slightly different region of space to allow than you have. Both are fairly permissive from a historical perspective. Despite all hysteria to the contrary, I haven't seen significant creep down the slippery slope in Canada (for example, all of the cases involving Muslim groups complaining about anti-Muslim opinion pieces have been dismissed).

I'd rather neither form of speech was restricted.

[niemamczasu]

I'm not complacent about it. I complain about it all the time. You may have noticed.

[Kolokireo]

Actually I haven't. I avoid most of the Canadian free speech threads because they consist mostly of alternating "this poster is on your ignore list" and Asher.

Irony