The context of speech is crucial when determining whether it is protected by the First Amendment.
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy was used to illustrate this point. While it is generally protected to say "fire" in a crowded theater, it is not protected to say "fire" in a crowded theater with the intent of causing a panic. In other words, the context of the speech can make all the difference.
Similarly, the events of January 6, 2021 were not merely free speech. They were an insurrection, an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States. The people who participated in the insurrection were not exercising their right to free speech; they were committing a crime.
It is important to remember that the First Amendment does not protect all speech. It does not protect speech that is intended to incite violence or to overthrow the government. It also does not protect speech that is defamatory or obscene.
Yes. Michael makes a good point, but it misses the intent of Walz's comment. Inciting a mob is not free speech. Similarly, Vance attacked "censorship" but he was talking about social media companies making rules on what can be on their sites. This isn't censorship, but rather capitalism, as these companies are trying to please users so they can make money on advertising. I do think free speech is the most important, if the most difficult at times, right that we have.
The context of speech is crucial when determining whether it is protected by the First Amendment.
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy was used to illustrate this point. While it is generally protected to say "fire" in a crowded theater, it is not protected to say "fire" in a crowded theater with the intent of causing a panic. In other words, the context of the speech can make all the difference.
Similarly, the events of January 6, 2021 were not merely free speech. They were an insurrection, an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States. The people who participated in the insurrection were not exercising their right to free speech; they were committing a crime.
It is important to remember that the First Amendment does not protect all speech. It does not protect speech that is intended to incite violence or to overthrow the government. It also does not protect speech that is defamatory or obscene.
Yes. Michael makes a good point, but it misses the intent of Walz's comment. Inciting a mob is not free speech. Similarly, Vance attacked "censorship" but he was talking about social media companies making rules on what can be on their sites. This isn't censorship, but rather capitalism, as these companies are trying to please users so they can make money on advertising. I do think free speech is the most important, if the most difficult at times, right that we have.
"still on the lamb in Moscow"
I would feel sheepish making that mistake... ;-)
FYI: It's 'on the lam'
"Sheepish!" You are ba-a-a-ah-d.
Bullseye, Michael!