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.
Let me break it down for you: Child pornography is an illegal act not protected by anything. It is already illegal. There are laws explicitly about it. You aren't given a "gag order" in court to stop spreading child pornography; you are already in deep shit for breaking that law in the first place.
There is no law against exercising free speech and criticism of a public figure working on behalf of the government, which is EXPLICITLY protected speech.
That's the difference.
If you can't figure that out, fuck off because holy shit that's too stupid for words.
I'm not saying child pornography is legal. I have never said that.
But there have been plenty of people that have tried to use Free Speech as a means to publish child pornography. And they have tried to get laws prohibiting child pornography dismissed under the argument it violates free speech.
That is why child pornography is specifically listed as a limitation on free speech.
"Certain types of hard-core pornography, labeled obscenity by the law, may also be punished, as the Supreme Court held in Miller v. California (1973). Exactly what constitutes obscenity is not clear, but since the 1980s the definition has been quite narrow. Also, obscenities in the sense of merely vulgar words may not be punished (Cohen v. California [1971]).
Material depicting actual children engaging in sex, or being naked in a sexually suggestive context, is called child pornography and may be punished. Sexually themed material that uses adults who look like children or features hand-drawn or computer-generated pictures of fictional children does not fall within this exception, though some such material might still be punishable as obscenity."
Free speech laws didn't evolve in a vacuum. There are specific limitations on free speech just because someone tried to use free speech to do exactly those things.
My point was that free speech is not absolute. Its not just child pornography that is limited, though. Things like slander and libel and inciting violence.
Yes, we have laws against those things, or some of them, anyway. It doesn't stop people trying to use the First Amendment to do them anyway,.or to use as a defense.
So, the fact that child pornography is not covered by the First Amendment doesn't mean that it's not already illegal, it means that it can't be used as a defense or argument in their defense trial, either.
Freedom of speech explicitly protects your speech from being infringed upon by the government.
The first amendment is explicitly there for that.
Period. This isn't Trump committing an illegal act and being stopped from doing so; this is Trump criticizing a government entity, and that government entity is saying he's not allowed to do so.
This is not hard to understand. But I know who you remind me of now.
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.
So you are actually retarded.
Let me break it down for you: Child pornography is an illegal act not protected by anything. It is already illegal. There are laws explicitly about it. You aren't given a "gag order" in court to stop spreading child pornography; you are already in deep shit for breaking that law in the first place.
There is no law against exercising free speech and criticism of a public figure working on behalf of the government, which is EXPLICITLY protected speech.
That's the difference.
If you can't figure that out, fuck off because holy shit that's too stupid for words.
I'm not saying child pornography is legal. I have never said that.
But there have been plenty of people that have tried to use Free Speech as a means to publish child pornography. And they have tried to get laws prohibiting child pornography dismissed under the argument it violates free speech.
That is why child pornography is specifically listed as a limitation on free speech.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression
"Certain types of hard-core pornography, labeled obscenity by the law, may also be punished, as the Supreme Court held in Miller v. California (1973). Exactly what constitutes obscenity is not clear, but since the 1980s the definition has been quite narrow. Also, obscenities in the sense of merely vulgar words may not be punished (Cohen v. California [1971]).
Material depicting actual children engaging in sex, or being naked in a sexually suggestive context, is called child pornography and may be punished. Sexually themed material that uses adults who look like children or features hand-drawn or computer-generated pictures of fictional children does not fall within this exception, though some such material might still be punishable as obscenity."
Free speech laws didn't evolve in a vacuum. There are specific limitations on free speech just because someone tried to use free speech to do exactly those things.
My point was that free speech is not absolute. Its not just child pornography that is limited, though. Things like slander and libel and inciting violence.
Yes, we have laws against those things, or some of them, anyway. It doesn't stop people trying to use the First Amendment to do them anyway,.or to use as a defense.
So, the fact that child pornography is not covered by the First Amendment doesn't mean that it's not already illegal, it means that it can't be used as a defense or argument in their defense trial, either.
So, hopefully we have that cleared up.
Freedom of speech explicitly protects your speech from being infringed upon by the government.
The first amendment is explicitly there for that.
Period. This isn't Trump committing an illegal act and being stopped from doing so; this is Trump criticizing a government entity, and that government entity is saying he's not allowed to do so.
This is not hard to understand. But I know who you remind me of now.
No, that's not "period". Because there are limitations placed on free speech. Such as libel, slander, and inciting violence.
Gag orders themselves have not been shown to violate the first amendment. As I have said before, it's determined by the case itself.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order#:~:text=However%2C%20a%20court%20will%20scrutinize,as%20with%20any%20prior%20restraint.
So if there is no valid reason for the judge in the case to have imposed that gag rule, then he can take it up legally in court if he wishes.