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 sure what you mean that they're not applicable to government entities.
The government does not have the right in any fashion to stop you from protesting against them, complaining about them, talking trash about them, not even making up shit about them that you can't prove. You can commit libel or slander, and they can't do shit about it. I can say that Adam Schiff shits his pants on the House floor and everyone smells it because he wants them to, and they don't have the right to do anything about it because of the first amendment. A judge cannot change that. This is protected speech.
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.
Yes, it is. In regards to criticizing government, it is in fucking fact, absolute.
Just because there are times where it has been broken does not change that fact.
Getting away with a crime does not make it legal. The same goes for the government.
I am not whoever you think I am
That remains to be seen. You're certainly not a Constitutionalist, which means we have no compatibility in discussion.
I gave you enough of my time after your attempts to insinuate that the dissemination of child pornography is an acceptable analog to the government suppressing someone's speech so they can't criticize them.
Remember how Trump wanted to sue people who criticized him while he was President? Or when he wanted to get the FCC to get SNL off the air because they made fun of him?
Could you explain to me how that wouldn't have violated their Freedom of Speech rights?
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.
The government does not have the right in any fashion to stop you from protesting against them, complaining about them, talking trash about them, not even making up shit about them that you can't prove. You can commit libel or slander, and they can't do shit about it. I can say that Adam Schiff shits his pants on the House floor and everyone smells it because he wants them to, and they don't have the right to do anything about it because of the first amendment. A judge cannot change that. This is protected speech.
Yes, it is. In regards to criticizing government, it is in fucking fact, absolute.
Just because there are times where it has been broken does not change that fact.
Getting away with a crime does not make it legal. The same goes for the government.
That remains to be seen. You're certainly not a Constitutionalist, which means we have no compatibility in discussion.
I gave you enough of my time after your attempts to insinuate that the dissemination of child pornography is an acceptable analog to the government suppressing someone's speech so they can't criticize them.
See ya.
But it does remind me of something else.
Remember how Trump wanted to sue people who criticized him while he was President? Or when he wanted to get the FCC to get SNL off the air because they made fun of him?
Could you explain to me how that wouldn't have violated their Freedom of Speech rights?
I suppose we just need to see how this case goes, as to whether the gag order violates his freedom of speech.
If his lawyers even try the route or the Supreme Court rules against the judge, I guess you can claim bragging rights over being right.
If not, I will.
Later.