Like your freedom of speech deafinitely stops short of defamation and libel. Saying that the family of children killed at sandy hook are paid actors and encouraging people to harass them isn't protected speech.
Sorry, but it doesn't stop short of defamation and libel. We have courts that sort out if anyone says something that actually harms anyone, but their absolute right to say it remains the same. If everyone that defames and libels is not protected by the 1st Amendment, then I'm still waiting for all these media people to lose their jobs, and my compensation checks to arrive, from all these morons that have called me, and 60 million other Trump supporters, Nazis, Racists, and White Supremacists. Alex Jones is not the only one who says really stupid things.
The very fact that the courts are able to penalize someone for libel means it's not protected under the first amendment Lys. There are multiple limitations to the first amendment; specifically it does not protect speech that is defamatory, it does not protect speech that leads to illegal activity, it does not protect speech that incites violence, and it does not protect obscenity (defined currently as anything that falls within the scope of the Miller test)
WHen you lose a libel case and the court orders you to pay restitution that is literally the government enforcing a penalty upon you for something that you have said. If you refuse to pay, the person you now owe money to can file a lien against your assets, and the government can literally do shit like take your house away. If during that court case you decide to call the judge a monkey fucking asshole for ruling against you, the judge can find you in contempt of court and the government will literally send you to prison for something that you said.
All of those are necessary powers for the government to have: If the courts can't enforce a judgement, then the courts have no power and the law is worthless. If you can't be peanizled for disrupting a trial or otherwise defying or undermining the authority of the court, then the court has no authority. I don't think we're going to disagree that you should be able to seek restitution if someone claims you're a kiddie diddler. But there is no possible way for "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and "It's legal for the government to force you to pay restitution to someone whom you have defamed or libeled" to coexist if the freedom of speech acknowledged in the first amendment is unlimited. And that's because there is no right in the US constitution that is unlimited. Scalia had a pretty solid quote on the topic, although the case was in reference to the second amendment (The Heller decision)
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
The first amendment does not prevent the US government from penalizing some member of a cult who thinks prayer alone is a perfectly fine way to treat their diabetic child or from enforcing a libel verdict, or ordering the press to not release information about military movements in war time, or breaking up a riot, any more than the second amendment prevents the government from restricting the ownership of weapons to felons, or preventing you from carrying firearms into establishments serving alcohol.
It also does not protect you from experiencing consequences for your speech. Alex Jones has no first amendment right to a channel on Youtube
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
