CDZ How Free Is Free Speech in America?

[Sonny Clark]

It is supported by recent arrests made when someone, several people, posted comments on the internet. And, by years of monitoring calls, mail, and internet activity.

Care to link your claim?

Check the recent events as a result of the officers gunned down in New York. The news was all over the media and internet for days. Arrests were made just because several people commented on the internet about "putting wings on p**s". Do you not watch the news or read it on the internet?

So it should be easy to link.

Cops crack down on anti-police internet threats RT USA

The arrests are for threats, not speech - the two are different. If the facts of the articles are accurate then I highly doubt a single one of them will end up guilty of anything. this is more of a case of the police lashing out after being attacked (again, if the articles are accurate). That is something that is simply going to happen in a free society and not indicative of a loss of speech.

After the courts have spoken and convicted these people then you might have a point. Right now you don't.

At any rate, they were arrested. Being arrested says it all. They spoke, they were arrested.

 

[Lipush]

The uncomfortable truth is that here, as elsewhere around the world, freedom of expression has never come easily and is nearly always threatened in one way or another.

Bill Blum How Free Is Free Speech in America - Bill Blum -Truthdig

So, how do you think, is speech really free in America?

As a non-American, I say full heartly, that America has an almost total free speech.

 

[Freewill]

I have never had my free speech rights violated. Some of the crap I read on the Internet I really have to wonder if there is any limit to free speech. So yeah, I think it is pretty free.

I also don't understand the "PC" complaint. If you are being criticized for something you said doesn't that mean you had the right to say it in the first place and those you insult have the right to respond? No matter how idiotic?

Of course they have the right to respond. Public debate and discourse is critical to a free society and may be our greatest strength.

Do you feel it's within the spirit of freedom of expression that they also leverage their freedom of expression to punish you (such as damaging or destroying your career or your business) if you say something they don't like, and/or intimidate you from expressing your opinion in the future? Is that acceptable to you?

Not to me. Debate/discourse and punishment/intimidation are two entirely different things. Those who radicalize freedom of expression to punish and intimidate are liars and cowards.

.

What you have described IS the price of freedom of speech.

Let us use a really bad analogy, because I have little else. Say you piss off one of your clients and they start going around saying that mac is a POS who molests children and anyone who invests with mac supports pedophilia? This is so distorted and far from the truth that you know no one who knows you will take it seriously. But, you happen to notice a steep drop off in investments with you. What would you do?

That's libel, slander. That's not the same as some guy saying he doesn't to, for example, bake a cake for you because (bigoted excuse here). The only reason anyone would act on that, to leverage the law, would be to punish the guy and intimidate others from trying it. They were not harmed in any way, they just saw opportunity.

Again, there is a difference between debate/discourse and punishment/intimidation.

.

the bake shop has little to do with freedom of speech, it has a lot to do with freedom of religion, you are connecting the two.

But, as you point out, speech is limited by libel and slander laws.

the truth is you can say just about anything you want about the government and there is nothing they are going to do. We see it everyday on this board. But if you wish to lie about a person, libel or slander, that gets you into trouble real fast.

I'm not connecting freedom of speech with freedom of religion. In this case there is a connection, but there does not have to be. Not required.

The baker is not lying about the gay couple. He is not slandering or libeling. The couple could have flipped him off and walked out (and I would have cheered them), end of story, but no, they decided to make an example out of the guy and punish him.

I think that punishing people for expressing their opinion flies in the face of freedom of expression, but worse, it is dangerous and destructive. And this has nothing to do with the government, this is a cultural issue, a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to issue "consequences" by distorting freedom of expression to intimidate..

We're not going to agree here.

.

Not sure we are actually disagreeing. Did you know that Rosa Parks was actually legally sitting in the bus that day? I just though it was an interesting bit of history about a person who spoke out.

I don't believe the baker should be forced to bake a product that makes a statement about something that is against his strongly held religious beliefs. End of story, he doesn't have to make a statement, he doesn't have to exercise his freedom of speech his freedom of religion should override any complaint.

I would say the situtation could be different if say the baker was a surgeon and refused to operate on the man because he was gay. In this case the doctor action has nothing to do with making a statement about his religious beliefs.

But what is the gay couple to do? Certainly Rosa Parks could have gotten up and given her seat to a white person and nothing ever would have happened, but she spoke out. There were a whole lots of people in those days that think she should have just got up and shut up, just like they are saying about this couple. I am not equating the two situations only pointing out the outcomes.

Again, the huge difference for me is that of religious belief. The gays may not like that the baker believes differently them them but that is their problem no his. I also don't think they will win in the end if this is still a country with religious freedom. As I recall Muslims have been allowed to by pass passangers who have a dog or liquor. So certainly a baker should be allowed to NOT make a statement in favor of something against his religious belief.

In the end it is my opinion that you can't just say that it is in infringement of freedom of speech if some doesn't like what you said or especially doesn't like what you did. There is a freedom to carry a gun, but that freedom doesn't allow you to use the gun illegally.

 

[Freewill]

Free speech is a thing of the past. And, especially since 9/11. You have to watch what you say or someone will be knocking on your door. Also, what you say on the internet is monitored by the fed. They have programs that detect certain words or phrases, which can put you on a list. No, there is no free speech.

You shouldn't have said that.

Why not ??

I was joking.

 

[Freewill]

That's not the same as some guy saying he doesn't to, for example, bake a cake for you because (bigoted excuse here). The only reason anyone would act on that, to leverage the law, would be to punish the guy and intimidate others from trying it. They were not harmed in any way, they just saw opportunity.

Nope!

The bigot was in the wrong. If he was in the business of baking cakes then he has to bake a cake for anyone who comes in and asks for one. Public accommodation laws don't allow for discrimination.

Would he have to make a cake for NAMBLA? For neo-nazis? For the NRA? To argue from the absurd, what if the KKK wanted a cake showing them with a flaming cross hanging a black man?

What is more at stake in this issue, the baker's freedom of religion, whether you agree with his religion or not. Or the gays couple's ability to go to some other shop and have a cake made?

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person may not be discriminated against due to the following:

• Age.
• Pregnancy.
• National Origin.
• Race.
• Ethnic Background.
• Religious Beliefs.
• Sexual Orientation

It in no way included sexual orientation, at least not in the language.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

 

[Freewill]

That's not the same as some guy saying he doesn't to, for example, bake a cake for you because (bigoted excuse here). The only reason anyone would act on that, to leverage the law, would be to punish the guy and intimidate others from trying it. They were not harmed in any way, they just saw opportunity.

Nope!

The bigot was in the wrong. If he was in the business of baking cakes then he has to bake a cake for anyone who comes in and asks for one. Public accommodation laws don't allow for discrimination.

Would he have to make a cake for NAMBLA? For neo-nazis? For the NRA? To argue from the absurd, what if the KKK wanted a cake showing them with a flaming cross hanging a black man?

What is more at stake in this issue, the baker's freedom of religion, whether you agree with his religion or not. Or the gays couple's ability to go to some other shop and have a cake made?

Man!!! The thinking is on such a high level! I can't stand it.

Well at least I am.

15 years ago I do believe the majority of Americans would have thought it absurd that gays would be able to marry, and now we have it. Forced upon the people but we have it none the less. So yes the examples I gave might be a little bit on the absurd side but they were merely used to make a point.

 

[BULLDOG]

So how about an example of free speech being denied?

Speech is not necessarily denied. One can say anything they want to say. But, speech can be legally punished. In other words, we're free to speak, but that freedom comes with limits and restrictions. One can do what they want, but their actions carry consequences as well. It's the same with speech. It is not denied, it's limited and restricted.

If it is limited or restricted, it is done by the speaker himself, which is as it should be. If they are willing to take the natural results of their speech, they are free to say anything they want.

It's not limited or restricted by the individual speaking. Individuals don't punish themselves for speaking out. They don't speak and then self-impose punishment for what they said.

A little thick there aren't you? It has nothing to do with punishment. It's more a matter of a choice of whether what you want to say is worth any potential blowback you might deserve for saying it. Jeez I can hear the stupid coming through the computer.

The point is, we do not have freedom of speech. What "stupid" ?

Say what you want, Just be ready when others express their free speech.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's not the same as some guy saying he doesn't to, for example, bake a cake for you because (bigoted excuse here). The only reason anyone would act on that, to leverage the law, would be to punish the guy and intimidate others from trying it. They were not harmed in any way, they just saw opportunity.

Nope!

The bigot was in the wrong. If he was in the business of baking cakes then he has to bake a cake for anyone who comes in and asks for one. Public accommodation laws don't allow for discrimination.

Would he have to make a cake for NAMBLA? For neo-nazis? For the NRA? To argue from the absurd, what if the KKK wanted a cake showing them with a flaming cross hanging a black man?

What is more at stake in this issue, the baker's freedom of religion, whether you agree with his religion or not. Or the gays couple's ability to go to some other shop and have a cake made?

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person may not be discriminated against due to the following:

• Age.
• Pregnancy.
• National Origin.
• Race.
• Ethnic Background.
• Religious Beliefs.
• Sexual Orientation

It in no way included sexual orientation, at least not in the language.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Well, there is always this. The bakery was in Colorado, wasn't it?
Colorado Civil Rights Division
1560 Broadway, Suite 1050
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 894-2997
Fax: (303) 894-7830

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the state agency established to administer and enforce Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws in employment, housing and public accommodations. Colorado law prohibits such discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religion, disability (mental and physical), familial status (housing only), marital status (housing and public accommodations only), marriage to a co-worker (employment only), and age (employment only).

 

[BULLDOG]

If it is limited or restricted, it is done by the speaker himself, which is as it should be. If they are willing to take the natural results of their speech, they are free to say anything they want.

It's not limited or restricted by the individual speaking. Individuals don't punish themselves for speaking out. They don't speak and then self-impose punishment for what they said.

A little thick there aren't you? It has nothing to do with punishment. It's more a matter of a choice of whether what you want to say is worth any potential blowback you might deserve for saying it. Jeez I can hear the stupid coming through the computer.

The point is, we do not have freedom of speech. What "stupid" ?

A point that you have thus far been unable to support.

It is supported by recent arrests made when someone, several people, posted comments on the internet. And, by years of monitoring calls, mail, and internet activity.

Free speech doesn't make it OK to make threats.

 

[Freewill]

That's not the same as some guy saying he doesn't to, for example, bake a cake for you because (bigoted excuse here). The only reason anyone would act on that, to leverage the law, would be to punish the guy and intimidate others from trying it. They were not harmed in any way, they just saw opportunity.

Nope!

The bigot was in the wrong. If he was in the business of baking cakes then he has to bake a cake for anyone who comes in and asks for one. Public accommodation laws don't allow for discrimination.

Would he have to make a cake for NAMBLA? For neo-nazis? For the NRA? To argue from the absurd, what if the KKK wanted a cake showing them with a flaming cross hanging a black man?

What is more at stake in this issue, the baker's freedom of religion, whether you agree with his religion or not. Or the gays couple's ability to go to some other shop and have a cake made?

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person may not be discriminated against due to the following:

• Age.
• Pregnancy.
• National Origin.
• Race.
• Ethnic Background.
• Religious Beliefs.
• Sexual Orientation

It in no way included sexual orientation, at least not in the language.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Well, there is always this. The bakery was in Colorado, wasn't it?
Colorado Civil Rights Division
1560 Broadway, Suite 1050
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 894-2997
Fax: (303) 894-7830

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the state agency established to administer and enforce Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws in employment, housing and public accommodations. Colorado law prohibits such discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religion, disability (mental and physical), familial status (housing only), marital status (housing and public accommodations only), marriage to a co-worker (employment only), and age (employment only).

The statement was made that the 1964 Civil Rights act covered sexual orientation, which it did not. Of coures today I am pretty sure it would as witnessed by Colorado's discriminatory anti-discrimination laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope!

The bigot was in the wrong. If he was in the business of baking cakes then he has to bake a cake for anyone who comes in and asks for one. Public accommodation laws don't allow for discrimination.

Would he have to make a cake for NAMBLA? For neo-nazis? For the NRA? To argue from the absurd, what if the KKK wanted a cake showing them with a flaming cross hanging a black man?

What is more at stake in this issue, the baker's freedom of religion, whether you agree with his religion or not. Or the gays couple's ability to go to some other shop and have a cake made?

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person may not be discriminated against due to the following:

• Age.
• Pregnancy.
• National Origin.
• Race.
• Ethnic Background.
• Religious Beliefs.
• Sexual Orientation

It in no way included sexual orientation, at least not in the language.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Well, there is always this. The bakery was in Colorado, wasn't it?
Colorado Civil Rights Division
1560 Broadway, Suite 1050
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 894-2997
Fax: (303) 894-7830

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the state agency established to administer and enforce Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws in employment, housing and public accommodations. Colorado law prohibits such discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religion, disability (mental and physical), familial status (housing only), marital status (housing and public accommodations only), marriage to a co-worker (employment only), and age (employment only).

The statement was made that the 1964 Civil Rights act covered sexual orientation, which it did not. Of coures today I am pretty sure it would as witnessed by Colorado's discriminatory anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Sonny Clark]

It's not limited or restricted by the individual speaking. Individuals don't punish themselves for speaking out. They don't speak and then self-impose punishment for what they said.

A little thick there aren't you? It has nothing to do with punishment. It's more a matter of a choice of whether what you want to say is worth any potential blowback you might deserve for saying it. Jeez I can hear the stupid coming through the computer.

The point is, we do not have freedom of speech. What "stupid" ?

A point that you have thus far been unable to support.

It is supported by recent arrests made when someone, several people, posted comments on the internet. And, by years of monitoring calls, mail, and internet activity.

Free speech doesn't make it OK to make threats.

It depends. Sometimes people say things out of anger, but would never actually do what they say. We're all human, and we all have said things before that we really either didn't mean, or that we would never actually do. I have said things before that I would never ever do, but was angry at the time. How many people haven't? If I were to say that I hope a certain person has a bad car accident and gets killed as a result, and I said it in anger about a terrible driver that almost ran me off the road, doesn't necessarily mean that I honestly wish death on that person. I was angry at the time, and ten minutes later it means nothing to be anymore. We've all said terrible things in moments of anger, all of us. Does that mean that we should be arrested and charged with a crime? Have we committed a crime?

Punishment should be for crimes committed, actual acts carried out. And, not for someone speaking boastfully or in a moment of frustration and anger. If a person acts on what he or she says, then that's a different ball game. Yes, that person has not only said it, but carried out the threat that he or she verbally made. Free speech should be free, and without recourse, unless it can be proven harmful or damaging in some way. A mere few words spoken in anger should not warrant a knock on your door accompanied with handcuffs.

 

[BULLDOG]

A little thick there aren't you? It has nothing to do with punishment. It's more a matter of a choice of whether what you want to say is worth any potential blowback you might deserve for saying it. Jeez I can hear the stupid coming through the computer.

The point is, we do not have freedom of speech. What "stupid" ?

A point that you have thus far been unable to support.

It is supported by recent arrests made when someone, several people, posted comments on the internet. And, by years of monitoring calls, mail, and internet activity.

Free speech doesn't make it OK to make threats.

It depends. Sometimes people say things out of anger, but would never actually do what they say. We're all human, and we all have said things before that we really either didn't mean, or that we would never actually do. I have said things before that I would never ever do, but was angry at the time. How many people haven't? If I were to say that I hope a certain person has a bad car accident and gets killed as a result, and I said it in anger about a terrible driver that almost ran me off the road, doesn't necessarily mean that I honestly wish death on that person. I was angry at the time, and ten minutes later it means nothing to be anymore. We've all said terrible things in moments of anger, all of us. Does that mean that we should be arrested and charged with a crime? Have we committed a crime?

Punishment should be for crimes committed, actual acts carried out. And, not for someone speaking boastfully or in a moment of frustration and anger. If a person acts on what he or she says, then that's a different ball game. Yes, that person has not only said it, but carried out the threat that he or she verbally made. Free speech should be free, and without recourse, unless it can be proven harmful or damaging in some way. A mere few words spoken in anger should not warrant a knock on your door accompanied with handcuffs.

Of course the credibility of the threat needs to be considered, but whose judgment on that should be used? The whole thing is subject to mistakes, but if a man says he is going to kill you, do you want to wait until he actually does that before anything can be done?

 

[Sonny Clark]

The point is, we do not have freedom of speech. What "stupid" ?

A point that you have thus far been unable to support.

It is supported by recent arrests made when someone, several people, posted comments on the internet. And, by years of monitoring calls, mail, and internet activity.

Free speech doesn't make it OK to make threats.

It depends. Sometimes people say things out of anger, but would never actually do what they say. We're all human, and we all have said things before that we really either didn't mean, or that we would never actually do. I have said things before that I would never ever do, but was angry at the time. How many people haven't? If I were to say that I hope a certain person has a bad car accident and gets killed as a result, and I said it in anger about a terrible driver that almost ran me off the road, doesn't necessarily mean that I honestly wish death on that person. I was angry at the time, and ten minutes later it means nothing to be anymore. We've all said terrible things in moments of anger, all of us. Does that mean that we should be arrested and charged with a crime? Have we committed a crime?

Punishment should be for crimes committed, actual acts carried out. And, not for someone speaking boastfully or in a moment of frustration and anger. If a person acts on what he or she says, then that's a different ball game. Yes, that person has not only said it, but carried out the threat that he or she verbally made. Free speech should be free, and without recourse, unless it can be proven harmful or damaging in some way. A mere few words spoken in anger should not warrant a knock on your door accompanied with handcuffs.

Of course the credibility of the threat needs to be considered, but whose judgment on that should be used? The whole thing is subject to mistakes, but if a man says he is going to kill you, do you want to wait until he actually does that before anything can be done?

Again, we all say things in moments of anger that we really don't mean. Yes, we get frustrated and really really angry, but do we go around killing people? I've said a lot of things in anger that I would never do. I'm sure that at one time or another, everyone has said terrible things that they would never do. We're all guilty of that. I have guns, but does that mean that I might kill someone just for fun, or that has made me mad? We can all be considered guilty if what we think or say in moments of anger or frustration were to be held against us. There wouldn't be enough jails to hold all of us. Look at the number of people stuck in rush hour traffic that says terrible things to people, and, yes, even says things like they wish they were dead. How many couples have arguments and say that they would kill the other if given the chance? How many people have said that they would kill someone if they knew that they could get by with it? People have said that about in-laws. Should we arrest everyone that gets angry and makes threats? How many jails would it take to hold everyone?

 

[BULLDOG]

A point that you have thus far been unable to support.

It is supported by recent arrests made when someone, several people, posted comments on the internet. And, by years of monitoring calls, mail, and internet activity.

Free speech doesn't make it OK to make threats.

It depends. Sometimes people say things out of anger, but would never actually do what they say. We're all human, and we all have said things before that we really either didn't mean, or that we would never actually do. I have said things before that I would never ever do, but was angry at the time. How many people haven't? If I were to say that I hope a certain person has a bad car accident and gets killed as a result, and I said it in anger about a terrible driver that almost ran me off the road, doesn't necessarily mean that I honestly wish death on that person. I was angry at the time, and ten minutes later it means nothing to be anymore. We've all said terrible things in moments of anger, all of us. Does that mean that we should be arrested and charged with a crime? Have we committed a crime?

Punishment should be for crimes committed, actual acts carried out. And, not for someone speaking boastfully or in a moment of frustration and anger. If a person acts on what he or she says, then that's a different ball game. Yes, that person has not only said it, but carried out the threat that he or she verbally made. Free speech should be free, and without recourse, unless it can be proven harmful or damaging in some way. A mere few words spoken in anger should not warrant a knock on your door accompanied with handcuffs.

Of course the credibility of the threat needs to be considered, but whose judgment on that should be used? The whole thing is subject to mistakes, but if a man says he is going to kill you, do you want to wait until he actually does that before anything can be done?

Again, we all say things in moments of anger that we really don't mean. Yes, we get frustrated and really really angry, but do we go around killing people? I've said a lot of things in anger that I would never do. I'm sure that at one time or another, everyone has said terrible things that they would never do. We're all guilty of that. I have guns, but does that mean that I might kill someone just for fun, or that has made me mad? We can all be considered guilty if what we think or say in moments of anger or frustration were to be held against us. There wouldn't be enough jails to hold all of us. Look at the number of people stuck in rush hour traffic that says terrible things to people, and, yes, even says things like they wish they were dead. How many couples have arguments and say that they would kill the other if given the chance? How many people have said that they would kill someone if they knew that they could get by with it? People have said that about in-laws. Should we arrest everyone that gets angry and makes threats? How many jails would it take to hold everyone?

I don't really care how angry you get. If you have no more self control than to go around threatening to kill people, you are a danger to others, and should be taken off the street. If a person is crazy enough to make that kind of threat, he is probably crazy enough to do it. It wouldn't be reasonable to allow them to roam free.

 

[asaratis]

If you post anything seen as anti Jewish, you kop one.

UN s Richard Falk under fire for anti-Semitic cartoon - International - Jerusalem Post

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, harshly criticized Falk over the affair and said that Congress should withhold funding from the Human Rights Council until reforms are enacted.

Doesn't sound very free.

His being "under fire" (verbally) is acceptable. His being under fire at the head of a machine gun is not.

 

[Asclepias]

The uncomfortable truth is that here, as elsewhere around the world, freedom of expression has never come easily and is nearly always threatened in one way or another.

Bill Blum How Free Is Free Speech in America - Bill Blum -Truthdig

So, how do you think, is speech really free in America?

No such thing as free speech. There is always a consequence or price to be paid for your words.

 

[Mac1958]

The uncomfortable truth is that here, as elsewhere around the world, freedom of expression has never come easily and is nearly always threatened in one way or another.

Bill Blum How Free Is Free Speech in America - Bill Blum -Truthdig

So, how do you think, is speech really free in America?

No such thing as free speech. There is always a consequence or price to be paid for your words.

Incorrect.

There is only a price to be paid if someone chooses to make you pay the price.

Certain groups are far more likely than others to go out of their way to punish someone for "offending" them.

Such as the American PC Police and the Jihadist PC Police.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The uncomfortable truth is that here, as elsewhere around the world, freedom of expression has never come easily and is nearly always threatened in one way or another.

Bill Blum How Free Is Free Speech in America - Bill Blum -Truthdig

So, how do you think, is speech really free in America?

No such thing as free speech. There is always a consequence or price to be paid for your words.

Incorrect.

There is only a price to be paid if someone chooses to make you pay the price.

Certain groups are far more likely than others to go out of their way to punish someone for "offending" them.

Such as the American PC Police and the Jihadist PC Police.

.

It's the CDZ.

What a mature comment that was. Congratulations!

 

[Asclepias]

The uncomfortable truth is that here, as elsewhere around the world, freedom of expression has never come easily and is nearly always threatened in one way or another.

Bill Blum How Free Is Free Speech in America - Bill Blum -Truthdig

So, how do you think, is speech really free in America?

No such thing as free speech. There is always a consequence or price to be paid for your words.

Incorrect.

There is only a price to be paid if someone chooses to make you pay the price.

Certain groups are far more likely than others to go out of their way to punish someone for "offending" them.

Such as the American PC Police and the Jihadist PC Police.

.

You lack understanding and have no idea how the human mind works. Look up Newtons 3rd law. I learned this in grade school.