What is the solution? Or at least what action should be taken?

[danielpalos]

How many people a year die or get sick from pesticides every year?

Chinese anger over alleged cover-up of high-speed rail crash

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-have-died-in-aviation-accidents-since-the-first-airplane

How many people die in fires?

Overdose Death Rates

----------------------------------- people die all the time due to all sorts of causes . But RDAVE and crew / ilk want to take the Effective guns that are important to the Furthering the REASONING behind the Second Amendment away from Americans . ------------------- some would wonder WHY RDave and ilk want to neuter Americans eh ??

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

We have a Second Amendment, why do we have security problems in our free States?

 

[progressive hunter]

..you can HAVE a gun----a pistol and rifle
not 30 though
..you can HAVE a gun--your right--but not gifting guns or buying one for your kid--this is NOT infringement at all
..you can HAVE a gun--not a 30 round mag though--this is NOT infringement
you can HAVE a gun--but there needs to be legal/regulated gunSTORES--this is NOT infringement
...it must be locked up...if stolen and it wasn't locked--you should have to wait years to get another
..stolen from a car-?--you have to wait to get another
--they are designed to KILL

those are all infringements,,,

and what if the car is locked???

dont be a dumbass,,,

I've been over this before--all rights are restricted--not unlimited

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

 

[WinterBorn]

..you can HAVE a gun----a pistol and rifle
not 30 though
..you can HAVE a gun--your right--but not gifting guns or buying one for your kid--this is NOT infringement at all
..you can HAVE a gun--not a 30 round mag though--this is NOT infringement
you can HAVE a gun--but there needs to be legal/regulated gunSTORES--this is NOT infringement
...it must be locked up...if stolen and it wasn't locked--you should have to wait years to get another
..stolen from a car-?--you have to wait to get another
--they are designed to KILL

those are all infringements,,,

and what if the car is locked???

dont be a dumbass,,,

I've been over this before--all rights are restricted--not unlimited

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

-----------------------------sure , you can yell anything you like but you'll be arrested if there is no fire and people are hurt in the stampede WBorn . As far as Slander , you can slander all you like but you may be sued .

Then wouldn't those examples show an exception to Free Speech? If you can be prosecuted for it, it is not free speech.

 

[progressive hunter]

those are all infringements,,,

and what if the car is locked???

dont be a dumbass,,,

I've been over this before--all rights are restricted--not unlimited

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

-----------------------------sure , you can yell anything you like but you'll be arrested if there is no fire and people are hurt in the stampede WBorn . As far as Slander , you can slander all you like but you may be sued .

Then wouldn't those examples show an exception to Free Speech? If you can be prosecuted for it, it is not free speech.

you cant be prosecuted for either of them,

can you show me any laws on the books??
the answer is no,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

..you can HAVE a gun----a pistol and rifle
not 30 though
..you can HAVE a gun--your right--but not gifting guns or buying one for your kid--this is NOT infringement at all
..you can HAVE a gun--not a 30 round mag though--this is NOT infringement
you can HAVE a gun--but there needs to be legal/regulated gunSTORES--this is NOT infringement
...it must be locked up...if stolen and it wasn't locked--you should have to wait years to get another
..stolen from a car-?--you have to wait to get another
--they are designed to KILL

those are all infringements,,,

and what if the car is locked???

dont be a dumbass,,,

I've been over this before--all rights are restricted--not unlimited

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

 

[progressive hunter]

those are all infringements,,,

and what if the car is locked???

dont be a dumbass,,,

I've been over this before--all rights are restricted--not unlimited

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

I've been over this before--all rights are restricted--not unlimited

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

 

[danielpalos]

those are all infringements,,,

and what if the car is locked???

dont be a dumbass,,,

I've been over this before--all rights are restricted--not unlimited

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

-----------------------------sure , you can yell anything you like but you'll be arrested if there is no fire and people are hurt in the stampede WBorn . As far as Slander , you can slander all you like but you may be sued .

Then wouldn't those examples show an exception to Free Speech? If you can be prosecuted for it, it is not free speech.

Our First Amendment is about free political speech.

 

[progressive hunter]

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

I read quite often. And I showed legal scholars saying that free speech can be regulated, which was the point of my initial post on the subject.

There are specific types of speech that can be prosecuted. ie, inciting a riot, speech that directly causes harm to others ect.

 

[progressive hunter]

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

I read quite often. And I showed legal scholars saying that free speech can be regulated, which was the point of my initial post on the subject.

There are specific types of speech that can be prosecuted. ie, inciting a riot, speech that directly causes harm to others ect.

then you can show me a law that restricts speech????

and what about that slander claim??? any laws against that??? NO there isnt

 

[WinterBorn]

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

I read quite often. And I showed legal scholars saying that free speech can be regulated, which was the point of my initial post on the subject.

There are specific types of speech that can be prosecuted. ie, inciting a riot, speech that directly causes harm to others ect.

then you can show me a law that restricts speech????

and what about that slander claim??? any laws against that??? NO there isnt

"2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-31 - Inciting to riot
O.C.G.A. 16-11-31 (2010)
16-11-31. Inciting to riot


(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor."



There is a law against inciting a riot, and thus the regulation of free speech.

 

[progressive hunter]

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

I read quite often. And I showed legal scholars saying that free speech can be regulated, which was the point of my initial post on the subject.

There are specific types of speech that can be prosecuted. ie, inciting a riot, speech that directly causes harm to others ect.

then you can show me a law that restricts speech????

and what about that slander claim??? any laws against that??? NO there isnt

"2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-31 - Inciting to riot
O.C.G.A. 16-11-31 (2010)
16-11-31. Inciting to riot


(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor."



There is a law against inciting a riot, and thus the regulation of free speech.

that a prosecution for violence not speech

 

[WinterBorn]

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

I read quite often. And I showed legal scholars saying that free speech can be regulated, which was the point of my initial post on the subject.

There are specific types of speech that can be prosecuted. ie, inciting a riot, speech that directly causes harm to others ect.

then you can show me a law that restricts speech????

and what about that slander claim??? any laws against that??? NO there isnt

"2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-31 - Inciting to riot
O.C.G.A. 16-11-31 (2010)
16-11-31. Inciting to riot


(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor."



There is a law against inciting a riot, and thus the regulation of free speech.

that a prosecution for violence not speech

"A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot..."

It is prosecution for inciting a riot. If you "urge, counsel or advise others to riot". You said I should try reading? I suggest you do the same.

 

[progressive hunter]

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

I read quite often. And I showed legal scholars saying that free speech can be regulated, which was the point of my initial post on the subject.

There are specific types of speech that can be prosecuted. ie, inciting a riot, speech that directly causes harm to others ect.

then you can show me a law that restricts speech????

and what about that slander claim??? any laws against that??? NO there isnt

"2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-31 - Inciting to riot
O.C.G.A. 16-11-31 (2010)
16-11-31. Inciting to riot


(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor."



There is a law against inciting a riot, and thus the regulation of free speech.

that a prosecution for violence not speech

"A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot..."

It is prosecution for inciting a riot. If you "urge, counsel or advise others to riot". You said I should try reading? I suggest you do the same.

thanks for confirming that the prosecution is from a result of the speech,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

I read quite often. And I showed legal scholars saying that free speech can be regulated, which was the point of my initial post on the subject.

There are specific types of speech that can be prosecuted. ie, inciting a riot, speech that directly causes harm to others ect.

then you can show me a law that restricts speech????

and what about that slander claim??? any laws against that??? NO there isnt

"2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-31 - Inciting to riot
O.C.G.A. 16-11-31 (2010)
16-11-31. Inciting to riot


(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor."



There is a law against inciting a riot, and thus the regulation of free speech.

that a prosecution for violence not speech

"A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot..."

It is prosecution for inciting a riot. If you "urge, counsel or advise others to riot". You said I should try reading? I suggest you do the same.

thanks for confirming that the prosecution is from a result of the speech,,,

I am glad I could help.

 

[harmonica]

I've been over this before--all rights are restricted--not unlimited

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

-----------------------------sure , you can yell anything you like but you'll be arrested if there is no fire and people are hurt in the stampede WBorn . As far as Slander , you can slander all you like but you may be sued .

Then wouldn't those examples show an exception to Free Speech? If you can be prosecuted for it, it is not free speech.

you cant be prosecuted for either of them,

can you show me any laws on the books??
the answer is no,,,

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

 

[harmonica]

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

hey bud you ever find those laws you speak of??

from: Is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
"The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

So my example is accurate, with a caveat. "...it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

so you cant show me any laws ,,,
as I figured,,,

I did not show state laws, but I did show that the right of free speech can (and is) regulated.

The charge of Inciting to Riot is a regulation of free speech.

from: Criminal Threats
"Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel."

show me a law that restricts speech,,,

nowhere in the first does it say you cant be held responsible for your speech,,it only says the government cant restrict it


try reading it sometime,,,

if you can get fired for words you say--it's not free/unlimited
so you are and can be held responsible

 

[progressive hunter]

no they arent,,,

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

-----------------------------sure , you can yell anything you like but you'll be arrested if there is no fire and people are hurt in the stampede WBorn . As far as Slander , you can slander all you like but you may be sued .

Then wouldn't those examples show an exception to Free Speech? If you can be prosecuted for it, it is not free speech.

you cant be prosecuted for either of them,

can you show me any laws on the books??
the answer is no,,,

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

 

[harmonica]

Sure they are. You have freedom of speech. But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone.

-----------------------------sure , you can yell anything you like but you'll be arrested if there is no fire and people are hurt in the stampede WBorn . As far as Slander , you can slander all you like but you may be sued .

Then wouldn't those examples show an exception to Free Speech? If you can be prosecuted for it, it is not free speech.

you cant be prosecuted for either of them,

can you show me any laws on the books??
the answer is no,,,

if you are fired because of your race, or sex, the employer can be hammered by the law
but people get fired all the time for ''free'' speech--it's not free/unlimited if you can get fired for it

try reading the 1st A sometime and you will see it protects you from the government not your boss,,,or me,,,
so shut the **** up,,,


your ignorance is noted,,,

wow---why so angry--upset over a ''friendly'' discussion ???? you are out of your mind
free speech is limited--no question about it