No. Not at all. I was responding to someone who was saying that "One limit on the First Amendment would beckon another", and was suggesting that gag orders were unconstitutional because of that.
I was pointing out that there were ALREADY limits on freedom of speech. And I listed some of those limitations.
I think the issue is that my comment got lost in the thread, and it's not readily apparent who/what I was responding to.
I should have quoted him in my response, just so no one would have been confused.
My interpretation of this in the ORIGINAL sense is metered thusly: "Even if what is said makes me furious, I will defend his right to speak at all times"...
If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Possession and distribution of child pornography is far, far different than making statements about a public figure.
Also a very and literally retarded analog.
Reading through your post history, it's interesting that I've noticed a trend; your posts seem to come across as very controversial in very weird ways for someone who is supposedly on our side, and seem to align with new handshakes saying similar things. Usually it's when some "gotcha" thing happens and leftists storm the .wins.
Interestingly, your post actually starts to come across as "if you believe a gag order is unconstitutional, then you would be defending child pornography" and ah ah ah, nope.
Not gonna work. As someone who deeply participated in Pizzagate digs and research, I have a passion for defending kids from such repugnancy.
I'll have to continue to see where your posts lead.
They both concern free speech rights. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that pedophiles haven't tried to use Free Speech rights in their defense. They have.
This is exactly one of the reasons we have limitations on free speech.
What I said was that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are limitations on what can be considered free speech. These are limitations set by the government. Not me.
Child pornography is but one of those limitations. Yes, I understand that this is an illegal activity.
That hasn't stopped people from trying to use freedom of speech (or rather, the thought that freedom of speech should be absolute, with no limitations) to defend their possession or making of child pornography or to try to argue that it should be made legal.
Here's a news flash many people seem to be missing. Not everything that is illegal today was always illegal. Not everything that is illegal today will be illegal tomorrow.
Even child pornography has not always been illegal. When it was first made illegal, guess what one of the main defenses child pornographers used in court? That's right, freedom of speech!
Guess what happened after there were a shit ton of child pornographers using free speech in court as a defense? Well, I've been trying to tell you. Child pornography was put on that list of limitations on free speech.
What does this limitation on free speech mean, practically speaking? For one, it means that no one can use the First Amendment to try to get laws against child pornography changed.
Laws are not permanent nor absolute. Not even laws like child pornography. Right now there is a big argument being made that AI-generated child pornography doesn't count as "real" child pornography because "real children" isn't used in the making. So they're arguing that AI generated child pornography should be legal.
I'm not advocating that AI child pornography be made legal before any idiot jumps to that conclusion. I'm pointing out that laws, even laws about things that are as universally abhorrent like child pornography aren't absolute.
Over 50 years ago, abortion was illegal in most states. Then Roe vs. Wade was passed and it became legal in all states. And then Roe vs Wade was revoked and now it's illegal in many states where it was previously legal.
I'm not arguing in favor (or against) abortion here, before anyone jumps up my ass about that as well. I'm pointing out that what is illegal and what is legal can and does change.
So, take everything I've said above, and I hope you can see why the fact that child ponography is illegal means jack shit when we're talking about it being a recognized limit on what is considered free speech.
Negative-in this fallen world, there is too much evil being called good- morality has suffered much since the Summer of Love and the 'feminist' movement. We truly need to return to a world balanced with Faith in Christ and try to help people to repent of their failings-there are far too many hard hearted people living in their arrogant certainty they are living their one life right while excluding God from their very existance.
Then why are you saying you would go with Voltaire's version of absolute free speech, when pedophiles try to use absolute free speech to defend child pornography?
You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. Do you really not see that?
Yeah, limits like slander, harassment, incitement of violence, and child pornography, just to name a few.
Frankly, I'm finding it alarming that so many patriots don't really understand what is and is not allowed under Freedom of Speech.
This is stuff we learned in middle school. At least some of us did.
I'm getting the impression many people here think Freedom of Speech means you can say anything, anywhere.
Yes, in middle school. WE sure did.
It makes me a little concerned you are inferring Trump is committing one of those offenses for which they would need a gag order.
I'm guessing (hope) you didn't mean to, but I'm not sure why you seem to be so open to this seeing as he is only speaking truths.
Someone getting hit with a gag order for speaking truth should not be allowed.
No. Not at all. I was responding to someone who was saying that "One limit on the First Amendment would beckon another", and was suggesting that gag orders were unconstitutional because of that.
I was pointing out that there were ALREADY limits on freedom of speech. And I listed some of those limitations.
I think the issue is that my comment got lost in the thread, and it's not readily apparent who/what I was responding to.
I should have quoted him in my response, just so no one would have been confused.
Just because something is done doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.
Gun control exists and is used in the U.S.; it doesn't make it suddenly Constitutional.
The Supreme Court has upheld those gun control laws, though. And the Supreme Court is who decides what is unconstitutional.
I don't agree with them, but I don't get to decide things like that. Which makes it important who gets to elect SC judges.
Just like I didn't agree with Roe vs Wade. But during the past 50 years, it was constitutional. Now it's not.
Until the laws change, gag orders are not unconstitutional as a whole.
My interpretation of this in the ORIGINAL sense is metered thusly: "Even if what is said makes me furious, I will defend his right to speak at all times"...
If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Because that's what it seems here.
Possession and distribution of child pornography is far, far different than making statements about a public figure.
Also a very and literally retarded analog.
Reading through your post history, it's interesting that I've noticed a trend; your posts seem to come across as very controversial in very weird ways for someone who is supposedly on our side, and seem to align with new handshakes saying similar things. Usually it's when some "gotcha" thing happens and leftists storm the .wins.
Interestingly, your post actually starts to come across as "if you believe a gag order is unconstitutional, then you would be defending child pornography" and ah ah ah, nope.
Not gonna work. As someone who deeply participated in Pizzagate digs and research, I have a passion for defending kids from such repugnancy.
I'll have to continue to see where your posts lead.
They both concern free speech rights. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that pedophiles haven't tried to use Free Speech rights in their defense. They have.
This is exactly one of the reasons we have limitations on free speech.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover criminal activity.
It does cover the rights of a pedophile to publicly preach on about their pedophilia if they wish.
I never said it did.
What I said was that freedom of speech is not absolute and there are limitations on what can be considered free speech. These are limitations set by the government. Not me.
Child pornography is but one of those limitations. Yes, I understand that this is an illegal activity.
That hasn't stopped people from trying to use freedom of speech (or rather, the thought that freedom of speech should be absolute, with no limitations) to defend their possession or making of child pornography or to try to argue that it should be made legal.
Here's a news flash many people seem to be missing. Not everything that is illegal today was always illegal. Not everything that is illegal today will be illegal tomorrow.
Even child pornography has not always been illegal. When it was first made illegal, guess what one of the main defenses child pornographers used in court? That's right, freedom of speech!
Guess what happened after there were a shit ton of child pornographers using free speech in court as a defense? Well, I've been trying to tell you. Child pornography was put on that list of limitations on free speech.
What does this limitation on free speech mean, practically speaking? For one, it means that no one can use the First Amendment to try to get laws against child pornography changed.
Laws are not permanent nor absolute. Not even laws like child pornography. Right now there is a big argument being made that AI-generated child pornography doesn't count as "real" child pornography because "real children" isn't used in the making. So they're arguing that AI generated child pornography should be legal.
I'm not advocating that AI child pornography be made legal before any idiot jumps to that conclusion. I'm pointing out that laws, even laws about things that are as universally abhorrent like child pornography aren't absolute.
Over 50 years ago, abortion was illegal in most states. Then Roe vs. Wade was passed and it became legal in all states. And then Roe vs Wade was revoked and now it's illegal in many states where it was previously legal.
I'm not arguing in favor (or against) abortion here, before anyone jumps up my ass about that as well. I'm pointing out that what is illegal and what is legal can and does change.
So, take everything I've said above, and I hope you can see why the fact that child ponography is illegal means jack shit when we're talking about it being a recognized limit on what is considered free speech.
Negative-in this fallen world, there is too much evil being called good- morality has suffered much since the Summer of Love and the 'feminist' movement. We truly need to return to a world balanced with Faith in Christ and try to help people to repent of their failings-there are far too many hard hearted people living in their arrogant certainty they are living their one life right while excluding God from their very existance.
Then why are you saying you would go with Voltaire's version of absolute free speech, when pedophiles try to use absolute free speech to defend child pornography?
You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. Do you really not see that?