https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does Freedom of speech...can get you fired,barred from, harassed, arrested expelled,dismissed,impeached,and shot in some cases. Regardless of what our forefathers tried to establish there is not Freedom of Speech,it to comes with a price. It becomes Freedom of Speech,only if you offended no one. Which here in the US is impossible. You may post ,but only if you agree with me......
I do not understand your point. The constitution is all about protecting the populace from government overreach. Says nothing about citizen to citizen intercourse. That is why Google and Facebook do not have to be fair and balanced. If I work for you,but go around badmouthing you and your company,do you not think you have a legitimate right to fire me? I have the right to bad mouth you,but you also have the right to disassociate yourself from me. Of course speech has repercussions,as it should!
If there's freedom of speech depends on what people understand by it and by the underlying word "free". It does not mean that every individual can say whatever they like and can, thus, decide what is covered by freedom of speech. There are certain boundaries defined by both the constitution and laws. Within this framework there's freedom of speech in the sense that people - and their political opponents as well - can express their political views. That's the difference between pluralistic societies and monolithic ones like autocracies and dictatorships. So that's the "Yes, there is." The "No, there isn't" is when freedom of speech is taken literally and when the constitutional and legal framework is ignored. It was funny, when in my country the wall came down and a number of people misinterpreted the word "free" in general as well as "freedom" of speech. They thought that "free" means that there are no laws, no limits to what they want to do. So they ignored speed limits on highways and thought the police doesn't have to tell them anything now that they live in a "free" society. They had to learn it the hard way. To some extent, freedom of speech is a promise and an ideal which is hardly ever achieved but which, after all, is what a lot of people are longing for in some countries.
The only problem I have with this issue is that Google, Facebook , and twitter (and others) get special tax and regulatory considerations as being impartial conduit of information. If those benefits of impartiality are removed, they can censor anyone they choose as far as I am concerned. This is, however, one of the several reasons I do not participate in any social media platforms.
Many young folks think they can talk to a law enforcement officer any way they want to and we all know what will lead to...…….handcuffs/arrest. Try "Freedom of Speech" towards a Judge and you will hear "I find you in Contempt of this Court and me", which ends up meaning jail time. There are those that don't care what they say to anyone. Freedom of Speech also doesn't exist in the military. An enlisted person bad-mouths an officer (to his face) or a lower-ranking officer does it to a higher-ranking officer, only spells one word...…….trouble!
As I believe it was intended, the concept of freedom of speech in the United States was intended to mean that the federal government wouldn't arrest you for expressing an opinion contrary to that of the government. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it was intended only as a limitation to the power of the federal government. It was never intended to suggest that you could say whatever you wanted to say without consequences, only that the consequence would not include being brought up on federal charges.
@Ken Anderson This is always what I believed it meant as well. Disagreeing or even bad mouthing a politician or government is one thing, but outside of that, one can fall into libel, slander and what is now called a hate crime.
When the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as trolling, and the most hateful speech came from slave owners or the anti-British. I don't think the framers considered that burning a flag would be protected as free speech, or baking a cake. The Supreme Court ruling actions as speech would most likely make the framers leave the country. As far as hate speech goes, I do not see the need for being hateful or goading people to the point where they punch you. I do not like being called the B or C word, but I would not sue that person or press charges... I would just set their house on fire (just kidding ) (maybe).
Nor do I think that the founders would consider corporate dollars free speech or ever consider a corporation a citizen.
The freedom of speech in the UK does not exist, all speech is against the law. The Muslim women in the face covering in this clip has been traced and arrested. Well for just saying one word against Gays. PS it was a Gay Pride march she was objecting to.
Slandering, belittling,brow beating another is not my idea of free speech. Free speech as I interpt is -- making a statement in regards to what you feel is right or wrong with a particular incident, place,or person, in public or private sector.
Spy Google, Spy Facebook - These sites are checked by some, if not all, when they're hiring. There's no telling how many people have lost their jobs because some boss didn't like their opinions, their choice of politicians. It's probably easy to find out someone's identity, especially if they post often, or are well known, in any capacity. With the loss of freedom by certain groups, some being viciously attacked, because of the possibility that some soulless, deranged person or group will be fueled by a comment, certain things should not be said at all. Lots of people had their "Make America Great Again" hats knocked off. Hopefully, some of the aggressors got what they deserved, for example, a nice *ss beating. I miss simpler times. The fact that a group assigned a negative meaning to that phrase is insanity.
It is only slander or libel if what is said or written is a lie and causes damage to that person, such as losing a job or spouse walking out. New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964. Hate crimes... criminal sentencing is based on motive and/or circumstance. A hate crime is a motive and/or circumstance. Someone attacking a Black Lives Matter protester is attacking a black person--that is discrimination and hate. The same goes for someone attacking a white person who is defending a black person (think of Freedom Riders where the whites were also brutally beaten). Someone burning a cross in a black family's yard is considered a vandal motivated by hate. Vandalism is a crime.