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.
The first two are not applicable to government entities.
Inciting violence is open to interpretation, but this is also not subject to a gag order. If you are already breaking the law by inciting violence, a gag order won't stop you. They don't physically put a gag in your mouth.
You remind me of the QultHQ subreddit mod who always had such shitty takes while pretending to be moderate.
He never argued in good faith, he always sidestepped everything like you are, and deliberately misunderstood everything.
I'm not sure what you mean that they're not applicable to government entities.
And yes, it's open to interpretation, but why does it need to only be subject to gag orders?
I think that the conversation has gone sideways here somewhere along the line.
What I am saying is that the First Amendment is not absolute. There are limitations on what is and is not considered protected free speech. Examples of some of these limitations are libel, slander, and inciting violence. There are others. These are just a few.
Court gag orders themselves have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has found that some gag orders are unconstitutional. It is determined on a case by case basis.
I am not saying that the gag order on President Trump is unconstitutional or not. I'm saying that it takes more than just saying "freedom of speech" to make it unconstitutional. I'm also pointing out that if his lawyers believe the gag order to be unconstitutional, then they can surely follow that route.
I am not whoever you think I am because I've never been a mod on any Reddit forum and rarely even read anything on Reddit, much less post there. I am sure you won't believe me, but thems the facts.
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.
The first two are not applicable to government entities.
Inciting violence is open to interpretation, but this is also not subject to a gag order. If you are already breaking the law by inciting violence, a gag order won't stop you. They don't physically put a gag in your mouth.
You remind me of the QultHQ subreddit mod who always had such shitty takes while pretending to be moderate.
He never argued in good faith, he always sidestepped everything like you are, and deliberately misunderstood everything.
I'm not sure what you mean that they're not applicable to government entities.
And yes, it's open to interpretation, but why does it need to only be subject to gag orders?
I think that the conversation has gone sideways here somewhere along the line.
What I am saying is that the First Amendment is not absolute. There are limitations on what is and is not considered protected free speech. Examples of some of these limitations are libel, slander, and inciting violence. There are others. These are just a few.
Court gag orders themselves have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has found that some gag orders are unconstitutional. It is determined on a case by case basis.
I am not saying that the gag order on President Trump is unconstitutional or not. I'm saying that it takes more than just saying "freedom of speech" to make it unconstitutional. I'm also pointing out that if his lawyers believe the gag order to be unconstitutional, then they can surely follow that route.
I am not whoever you think I am because I've never been a mod on any Reddit forum and rarely even read anything on Reddit, much less post there. I am sure you won't believe me, but thems the facts.