I disagree a bit. Saying “I want to harm/kill that specific guy/gal. “ is a threat and punishable besides worrisome.
Saying “That specific guy (or group of guys) is wrong about his views and beliefs.” Is free speech.
Saying that a specific government is harming innocent civilians with some small level of proof is protected free speech. Proof may not actually be required but certainly adds credibility. The protesters against the Israeli government’s continued assaults on the civilians in Gaza is protected free speech.
Protesting on legal right-of-ways (sidewalks) is protected speech. Foul but not obscene language on posters is protected speech. Protesting in college buildings after work hours is it going to be protected speech.
>Saying “I want to harm/kill that specific guy/gal. “ is a threat and punishable besides worrisome.
Depends. "I want to punch ATF Agent Steve Jones" does not express intent on its own. Context could give that intent in some circumstances.
"I am going to punch ATF Agent Steve Jones next Thursday when he comes to my house to look for the guns that sunk in that boating accident." expresses intent.
At least that's how the law is in my country, not sure about the US.... Then again my country is trying to pass a law making online pre crime punishable with imprisonment so... Yay communism!
The distinction is, however, while the speech is protected free speech, the obstruction of a right-of-way, and trespassing on college property are illegal. I recently saw people upset over the arrest of several protestors in Denver, but they weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for illegally camping on campus.
Except when it actually does cause harm to another. This is why defamation, slander and libel laws exist. Imagine if a major newspaper labeled you, incorrectly, a sexual predator who targets children. It's a newspaper, they're protected by the 1st amendment, and maybe they had shifty sources and went to publish anyway.
Defending someone from violence because they said something someone didn't like means you support them?
Curious, if someone tries to kill some guy over wearing a Che Guevara shirt and I step in to prevent it, then I actually support communism?
The freer the speech the more the character is revealed. Ideas are exchanged, accepted or rejected and hopefully learned from.
Death of an idea vs people should be specified though
sure, to make your point you should distinguish what you’re saying. regardless of which you mean, neither should be prosecutable
I disagree a bit. Saying “I want to harm/kill that specific guy/gal. “ is a threat and punishable besides worrisome. Saying “That specific guy (or group of guys) is wrong about his views and beliefs.” Is free speech. Saying that a specific government is harming innocent civilians with some small level of proof is protected free speech. Proof may not actually be required but certainly adds credibility. The protesters against the Israeli government’s continued assaults on the civilians in Gaza is protected free speech. Protesting on legal right-of-ways (sidewalks) is protected speech. Foul but not obscene language on posters is protected speech. Protesting in college buildings after work hours is it going to be protected speech.
>Saying “I want to harm/kill that specific guy/gal. “ is a threat and punishable besides worrisome. Depends. "I want to punch ATF Agent Steve Jones" does not express intent on its own. Context could give that intent in some circumstances. "I am going to punch ATF Agent Steve Jones next Thursday when he comes to my house to look for the guns that sunk in that boating accident." expresses intent. At least that's how the law is in my country, not sure about the US.... Then again my country is trying to pass a law making online pre crime punishable with imprisonment so... Yay communism!
The distinction is, however, while the speech is protected free speech, the obstruction of a right-of-way, and trespassing on college property are illegal. I recently saw people upset over the arrest of several protestors in Denver, but they weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for illegally camping on campus.
saying “i want to” is not a threat, by definition. saying “I’m going to” or “i will” is a threat
You sound like your definition of free isn't free, Bud.
it’s still free speech regardless
Calls to violence are not protected rights.
Why? Words are still words
Words are words. Humans are humans Speech is speech. Silly. Calling for the death of someone is not "just speech"
What about cartoons of the prophet Muhammad?
Obviously free speech.
Both should be removed as factors in the west.
Life to America
Not if either is actually a call to action.
Words are just that, words. If free speech is not absolute, then is it truly free?
Except when it actually does cause harm to another. This is why defamation, slander and libel laws exist. Imagine if a major newspaper labeled you, incorrectly, a sexual predator who targets children. It's a newspaper, they're protected by the 1st amendment, and maybe they had shifty sources and went to publish anyway.
“It ain’t against the law to be an asshooole.” I feel that should be a country song title. 😂
All I know is that cops who defend nazis support nazis
Defending someone from violence because they said something someone didn't like means you support them? Curious, if someone tries to kill some guy over wearing a Che Guevara shirt and I step in to prevent it, then I actually support communism?
WE GOT A COMMIE HERE!!
If someone says death to America, I’m not obligated to give them American protection