11 Jul 2022 5:10 pm
I agree it is pretty vague and this post I gave is my attempt to add some much needed clarity to it.DeezerShoove » 11 Jul 2022, 5:01 pm » wrote: ↑ People do not even speak the same way now as they did 200 years ago. Many aspects of our constitution are intentionally open to interpretation (unspecific and general).
Freedom is already a word that can, by various people, be viewed differently before you ever get to "of speech".
The old saw "You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater" seeks to show that not all speech CAN be protected and/or "free". But you set up some slippery slopes. young man. tsk, tsk...
When is the line crossed for stupid or obscene? Burning a flag and desecrating a symbol? Etc.
-----
I heard this once a long time ago:
If you call a cop a pig like shouting PIG! into his face and get a baton in the face, tough **** for you.
If you shout "I think you're a PIG!" he cannot legally baton your eyebrow off your face.
One is a disrespectful insult/verbal assault on a public servant.
The other is expressing an opinion.
How true or court-tested this notion is, I don't know.
It's all vague.
Free speech could only cover logically coherent political speech.
I see no benefit to society for pornography, slander, incoherent nonsense, incontrovertible disinformation, or subversion.