But at one point, the US Supreme Court ruled that it did. And it was that way for around 50 years.
And then another Supreme Court reversed it.
It all boils down to opinion. And activism is definitely something that influences the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Without activism, would slavery have never been abolished? Because slavery was upheld by the Supreme Court at one time.
My point is, that the US Constitution is something that can be interpreted 100 different ways by 100 different people.
Which is why we have the Supreme Court. Do they get everything right all the time? Of course not. Does that mean we should do away with it and let everyone just interpret the Constitution how they want? Of course not.
So until someone can figure out a solution to this dilemma, we will still have to go by how the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.
We can't just chuck the whole system whenever it fails us personally.
Free speech is not absolute. It doesn't mean that we are free to say anything we want, wherever we want, or whenever we want.
For instance, child pornography, inciting violence, harassment, libel, and slander are all things that are not allowed under free speech.
Gag orders from courts have continually been upheld by the Supreme Court. They do not infringe on freedom of speech, as a whole. Although, they are considered in a case-by-case scenario. Trump could take his case to court if he feels that it infringes on his freedom of speech.
I don't equate child pornography to free speech. But people who are in favor of it certainly do.
Did you not understand that I'm against that?
Because I thought it was quite clear when I said that we should be grateful that free speech isn't absolute, otherwise child pornography would be legal.
Or are you making a distinction concerning the term "speech" in "free speech"?
Because "freedom of speech" is also "freedom of expression". It's not just about people actually speaking, as in talking (speech).
So freedom of speech also applies to film, photos, recordings, cartoons, texts, etc...
And the US Supreme Court is who decides on the legality of laws that are based on the US Constitution.
So, if he believes his gag order is unconstitutional, then he can certainly take his case on that as far as he can.
But gag orders themselves are not unconstitutional. He has to show HOW his gag order is unconstitutional. Just pointing to the US Constitution and offering his opinion on what the Founding Fathers meant by freedom of speech doesn't work.
And we should be glad that things don't work that way, because if they did, every pedophile could do the same and say laws against child pornography are unconstitutional because THEIR idea of what the First Amendment means says so.
That sounds great until you land in prison. Or until that same philosophy is used against YOU somehow.
"Truth" is subjective. For instance, Muslims believe that their religion is the truth. Just the same as Christians do.
So if you advocate for people to be governed by their truths, then many Muslims would feel that they have the right to kill non-Muslims, based on their religion, which they believe to be the truth . So do you still believe we should be governed by what we think is truth?
You can't dictate to others what YOU feel is the truth is what THEY should live by.
We should be more concerned with FACTS than TRUTH.
Civil Disobedience and saying we all should be governed by our truths are two different things.
I'm not sure why you're even bringing up civil disobedience in this conversation.
Unless you're suggesting that President Trump should engage in civil disobedience and ignore his gag order? Because I'm not sure that would be seen as civil disobedience. But I'm not a constitutional scholar, and can't really say. Either way, I doubt it would go well for him if he did.
Again, advocating for civil disobedience is all great, until you land in prison.
I noticed you ignored my response to your earlier post. So, do you still suggest we all live by "truth" when that might also result in you being decapitated by Muslims who are living by THEIR truth?
Whether or not we agree should not matter; it’s either constitutional or it is not.
It is not
How so? What IS and IS NOT Constitutional is always up for debate
Which is how Roe vs Wade was reversed.
Roe had no constitutional foundation. It was activism. Activism that lasted 50 years.
But at one point, the US Supreme Court ruled that it did. And it was that way for around 50 years.
And then another Supreme Court reversed it.
It all boils down to opinion. And activism is definitely something that influences the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Without activism, would slavery have never been abolished? Because slavery was upheld by the Supreme Court at one time.
My point is, that the US Constitution is something that can be interpreted 100 different ways by 100 different people.
Which is why we have the Supreme Court. Do they get everything right all the time? Of course not. Does that mean we should do away with it and let everyone just interpret the Constitution how they want? Of course not.
So until someone can figure out a solution to this dilemma, we will still have to go by how the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.
We can't just chuck the whole system whenever it fails us personally.
"My point is, that the US Constitution is something that can be interpreted 100 different ways by 100 different people."
.
If so, then at least 99 of them would be wrong.
That's pretty much my point here.
Free speech people agree
Free speech is not absolute. It doesn't mean that we are free to say anything we want, wherever we want, or whenever we want.
For instance, child pornography, inciting violence, harassment, libel, and slander are all things that are not allowed under free speech.
Gag orders from courts have continually been upheld by the Supreme Court. They do not infringe on freedom of speech, as a whole. Although, they are considered in a case-by-case scenario. Trump could take his case to court if he feels that it infringes on his freedom of speech.
If you equate child pornography to speech, you speak a different language than me.
I don't equate child pornography to free speech. But people who are in favor of it certainly do.
Did you not understand that I'm against that?
Because I thought it was quite clear when I said that we should be grateful that free speech isn't absolute, otherwise child pornography would be legal.
Or are you making a distinction concerning the term "speech" in "free speech"?
Because "freedom of speech" is also "freedom of expression". It's not just about people actually speaking, as in talking (speech).
So freedom of speech also applies to film, photos, recordings, cartoons, texts, etc...
I did not say free speech. No where did I use the word FREE.
My original question still stands.
I'm not equating it. I'm saying that some people have used the First Amendment to try to argue that child pornography should be legal.
I really can't explain this concept any simpler.
If you don't understand it this time around, there's no use in asking me to explain it again.
I don't understand what you don't understand about it.
Do you not understand how the word "speech" works in the phrase "free speech" when referring to the First Amendment?
What exactly are you thinking about when I use the word "speech" in the phrase "free speech" in this conversation?
My point?
Fucking children is not speech. It's a one-way ticket to hell, and every decent person should arrange the trip as soon as possible.
Depends on who you're governed by.
I won't be governed by corruption so for me I'll speak the truth.
Trump is the same, they're trying to silence him with a corrupt system.
Our constitution doesn't support that.
Well, we in the US are governed by our laws here.
And our laws are based on the US Constitution.
And the US Supreme Court is who decides on the legality of laws that are based on the US Constitution.
So, if he believes his gag order is unconstitutional, then he can certainly take his case on that as far as he can.
But gag orders themselves are not unconstitutional. He has to show HOW his gag order is unconstitutional. Just pointing to the US Constitution and offering his opinion on what the Founding Fathers meant by freedom of speech doesn't work.
And we should be glad that things don't work that way, because if they did, every pedophile could do the same and say laws against child pornography are unconstitutional because THEIR idea of what the First Amendment means says so.
You're governed by lawyers.
You have to take stand for truth
Be governed by truth.
https://communities.win/c/RevelationOfJesusChrist/p/17rSV9vK6A/144000-/c
That sounds great until you land in prison. Or until that same philosophy is used against YOU somehow.
"Truth" is subjective. For instance, Muslims believe that their religion is the truth. Just the same as Christians do.
So if you advocate for people to be governed by their truths, then many Muslims would feel that they have the right to kill non-Muslims, based on their religion, which they believe to be the truth . So do you still believe we should be governed by what we think is truth?
You can't dictate to others what YOU feel is the truth is what THEY should live by.
We should be more concerned with FACTS than TRUTH.
Civil Disobedience is part of the culture of the USA.
stand on truth, be governed by truth.
Civil Disobedience and saying we all should be governed by our truths are two different things.
I'm not sure why you're even bringing up civil disobedience in this conversation.
Unless you're suggesting that President Trump should engage in civil disobedience and ignore his gag order? Because I'm not sure that would be seen as civil disobedience. But I'm not a constitutional scholar, and can't really say. Either way, I doubt it would go well for him if he did.
Again, advocating for civil disobedience is all great, until you land in prison.
I noticed you ignored my response to your earlier post. So, do you still suggest we all live by "truth" when that might also result in you being decapitated by Muslims who are living by THEIR truth?
His choice is to exercise his free speech right belligerantly or waive it.