"Free Speech" vs. Freedom of Speech

[Cassandro]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

 

[0311]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

Freedom Speech is protected by the Constitution. What is your problem?

 

[jotathought]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

Freedom of Speech restricts the government from suppressing speech. Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to private organizations (e.g., an employer or an online political forum) or individuals, and only applies to the government's ability to suppress speech. The key aspects of rights are that they are not absolute; therefore, outcomes such as fraud, incitement of violence, libel, slander, obscenities, threats, and child pornography are not protected because they do not provide social value or are focused on direct harm.

 

[Hafar1014]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

There is no difference in the wording. The first amendment only applies to the government

 

[1srelluc]

Limits on free speech in the United States:

Wikipedia+1

• Obscenity (as determined by the Miller test)
• Fraud
• Child pornography
• Speech integral to illegal conduct
• Speech that incites imminent lawless action
• Regulation of commercial speech such as advertising
• Protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons
• Restrictions on the use of untruths to harm others (slander and libel)
• Communications while a person is in prison
• Violations of intellectual property law
• True threats
• False statements of fact
• Employers can set standards for speech in the workplace.

 

[Cassandro]

There is no difference in the wording.

Are you trying to read in Braille?

The first amendment only applies to the government

Yes, that is why the Kirk/Kimmel arguments are moot points.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Negative Rites Are Not Positive Rites "

* Negative Rites Imply Negative Liberties As Independence From Government *

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

When freedom of speech or of the press violates a rite of the people peaceably to assemble , are positive rites through authoritarian actions of government expected to secure negative liberties among and between individuals ?

* Public Policy Discriminant : Negative Versus Positive Rites And Liberties *

The us first amendment is a law written in a form described as a negative rite , which provides a negative liberty , where the term negative implies non authoritarian action by government .

A law written in a form described as a positive rite , may provide negative liberties of protection among and between individuals through authoritarian action of government , or a positive rite may provide endowments through authoritarian action of government .

Negative liberties represent protections , independence and individualism .

Positive liberties represent endowments , dependence and collectivism .

. Political Science Terminology : Negative / Positive : Wrights / Liberties : Protections / Endowments .

* Inquisitive Ramblings *

. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ .
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Would us first amendment be more accurate with a colon , as in " congress shall make no law : respecting ... ; or ; or , and .,,. " , else not be a complete sentence ?

 

[PeterPilot]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

The courts have recognized that for a century or more. Old news indeed, but that doesn't mean that the government and corporations have gone to great lengths to censor truthful statements.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

Honest question, do you think Americans in general lack an understanding of 'consequences'?

 

[Hafar1014]

Honest question, do you think Americans in general lack an understanding of 'consequences'?

The first amendment only applies to the government

 

[jotathought]

Honest question, do you think Americans in general lack an understanding of 'consequences'?

I'd say Americans in general have a lack of understanding of what the First Amendment restricts government from doing.

 

[pal]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to its consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contract. Irrelevant for the crazy. Freedom does not exists for 20,000 schizophrenics in Sweden they say they are locked up. Other atheists: left-wing activists cannot say but left-wing can fight instead.

 

[whitehall]

Freedom of religion is covered in the same Amendment but the fascist Biden/Fauci regime arrested Americans for congregating during the Covid scare. Can we cancel the Bill of Rights without legislation for health reasons?

 

[Leo123]

If some idiot decides to use their 'freedom of speech' to confront another they could get a knuckle sammich.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

I think you get two types of folk with Free Speech. Those that know how to word it correctly, at the correct time, and in the correct place. And those that just open their mouth and it all just falls out. When you see Free Speech hit the headlines, like the guy that goes up to Muslims outside a mosque and shouts, "I love bacon", and then they wonder why they got arrested, that's the latter group.

Pausing and thinking before engaging mouth often avoids negative consequences.

 

[PeterPilot]

If some idiot decides to use their 'freedom of speech' to confront another they could get a knuckle sammich.

Isn't that old news? Didn't the men of 1787 already know that? Isn't it common sense?

 

[postman]

...When you see Free Speech hit the headlines, like the guy that goes up to Muslims outside a mosque and shouts, "I love bacon", and then they wonder why they got arrested, that's the latter group.

Pausing and thinking before engaging mouth often avoids negative consequences.

Actually your example should not subject the person to arrest. No more than if you said the same thing in front of or even inside a Kosher Deli.

 

[sparky]

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences

it would seem this applies universally.......~S~

 

[postman]

...When you see Free Speech hit the headlines, like the guy that goes up to Muslims outside a mosque and shouts, "I love bacon", and then they wonder why they got arrested, that's the latter group.

Pausing and thinking before engaging mouth often avoids negative consequences.

An actual example would be someone at a 9-11 memorial going up to the crowd and yelling "I love Osama BinLaden"

As such a statement isn't merely offensive, but is likely to incite a riot. Or be of conduct that would cause a egregious disturbance.

Disorderly conduct is a crime defined as behavior that disturbs the public peace,
To be charged, a person usually needs to have a specific intent, such as to cause public alarm , or have acted recklessly.

 

[postman]

it would seem this applies universally.......~S~

See: Soccer Riot.