Originally posted by cliffw: When someone does commit slander or libel or perjury or fraud or incite a riot do we take away their right to free speech ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Those limits on free speech apply to everyone. None of us are free to do any of those things. So I don't really understand your question.
Do you not understand what you read ? Do you need my help ?
All of are free to do all those things. Repeatedly. We are not free to use free speech maliciously.
Originally posted by BingB: I have enough common sense to understand that it is a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of violent convicted felons.
Any citizen would know that the buyer is a convicted felon if we had laws requiring background checks for every gun sale. That is my entire point. Every gun has to be licensed to a specific owner so that we can enforce the laws we already have. [/QUOTE]
Why did Martha Stewart lose her gun possession rights ?
Originally posted by BingB: I can't cite cases or anything like that. but I am pretty sure that the SCOTUS has upheld all the limitations on free speech that I listed.
Originally posted by BingB: The SCOTUS has upheld limitations on gun ownership for felons, people who commit domestic violence, and people with dangerous mental illness. they have also upheld limitations on owning fully automatic weapons and explosive devices.
The "right to bear arms" is ALREADY limited.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: I can't cite cases or anything like that.
So can judges in New York City, from all appearances....
Although, as an acting agent of the government, she would have the right to speak freely as a private citizen, but would not have the right to impose her personal vendetta in the manner in which she did. I don't see the ruling of SCOTUS as limiting her right to free speech. She was coercing the businesses she was supposed to be regulating. I see that as a different situation.
Yes. Proof that the Supreme Court can put limits on a person's "free speech".
You are clueless, as usual. No such proof is presented. No such concept is implied.
Sotomayor wrote the opinion, which begins:
quote
Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.
"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors." Think about that for a minute...
OK, who am I kidding? You will not think about it. I know you are not capable of understanding it.
And no, I will not waste my time trying to help you.
Again, the time for negotiation has passed. No explanation is due.
The shame of it all is that gang related violence accounts for a large percentage of the kids being killed in a shooting. The police in many cities know who and where the gang members are but don't do anything about them. It's predominantly black on black crime, but the government seemingly ignores the problem.
"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors." Think about that for a minute...
OK, who am I kidding? You will not think about it. I know you are not capable of understanding it.
And no, I will not waste my time trying to help you.
Again, the time for negotiation has passed. No explanation is due.
His inability to fully understand it very likely extends far beyond just the instant 2nd Amendment issue
An insightful comment from the article: "This lesson should be learned, and the amendment’s letter observed, not just by direct government regulators and enforcement officials. Government entities such as public schools and state colleges, too, must be bastions of free speech. A state college dean or professor no less than a state financial services regulator must not use viewpoint discrimination to penalize speech
Doubtless, our Leftards never imagined that NRA v Vullo could end up curtailing their heretofore unfettered use of public school classrooms to propagandize and indoctrinate.
