[Politics] Free Speech in the US; what does it mean

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The imminent re-emergence of the Tate brothers got me thinking about US Free speech.
It is likely that Trump will tick Starmer off on 'free speech' grounds at some point, so it seems worthwhile to consider what it all means.

In fact the first amendment is incredibly complicated, and the ability to promote hatred and suchlike is limited by other laws.

For example https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-8/ALDE_00013809/

So let me pose a few questions and see what the views are on them.
In America can you invoke the first amendment and avoid prosecution if you:

1. Tell lies, for example, accusing an individual of being a paedophile?
2. Incite against an identifiable group, triggering others to commit acts of violence?
3. Create a web page that promotes denigration and subjugation of women on grounds of inferiority?

The reason I ask is that it seems that the clauses of the first amendment preclude any of these, making them illegal.
Yet we have seen Musk and Trump get away with the first and second of these and,
it would seem likely, the Tate brothers are soon to get away with number 3.

What gives?
Is the first amendment simply something that can be bought and sold in court based on how much money you possess?

 

[Chicken Run]

The imminent re-emergence of the Tate brothers got me thinking about US Free speech.
It is likely that Trump will tick Starmer off on 'free speech' grounds at some point, so it seems worthwhile to consider what it all means.

In fact the first amendment is incredibly complicated, and the ability to promote hatred and suchlike is limited by other laws.

For example https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-8/ALDE_00013809/

So let me pose a few questions and see what the views are on them.
In America can you invoke the first amendment and avoid prosecution if you:

1. Tell lies, for example, accusing an individual of being a paedophile?
2. Incite against an identifiable group, triggering others to commit acts of violence?
3. Create a web page that promotes denigration and subjugation of women on grounds of inferiority?

The reason I ask is that it seems that the clauses of the first amendment preclude any of these, making them illegal.
Yet we have seen Musk and Trump get away with the first and second of these and,
it would seem likely, the Tate brothers are soon to get away with number 3.

What gives?
Is the first amendment simply something that can be bought and sold in court based on how much money you possess?

Ignore thread button pressed

 

[pb21]

Ignore thread button pressed

Live scenes at Chicken Run towers.

 

[beorhthelm]

free speech is much freeer in the US and first amendment invoked to defend much. they take it very seriously and courts protect the right, you can offend and lie largely with impunity, because it's your opinion. there are limits, see outcome of Alex Jones' persistent lies about Sandy Hook.

 

[Madafwo]

What gives?
Is the first amendment simply something that can be bought and sold in court based on how much money you possess?

To quote Talking Heads

"Same as it ever was"

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Not sure about free speech, but all I know is "you can't say anything anymore". Apparently.

 

[sparkie]

Free speech means being as obnoxious and hateful as possible with zero sanction.

 

[Anger]

These days if you say you’re…

Oh! Sorry, wrong nation and thread.

 

[METALMICKY]

Free speech means being as obnoxious and hateful as possible with zero sanction.

Indeed, but if you're unlucky far more chance that someone might ' sanction ' you aided by the existence of their lovely Second Amendment!