Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Then you misunderstand, because years of legal precedent disagree lol.
Congress shall make no law means the government can’t restrict your right to free speech, not that you’re free to literally say anything. Example: you can’t lay out your plan for assassinating a politician or threaten someone with a credible threat and be protected under the first amendment.
What you’re confused with is the definition of “free speech”. I suggest you research this further.
Yeah someone is making crap up. “Hate” speech is still protected under the 1st amendment. Now she is a student which has more restrictions but the term all lives matter is a nice gesture since she’s seven.
The parents will win if they go to court.
While certain words are, obscene and hateful speech (or speech inciting violence) is very much not protected under the 1st amendment:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-federal-law-draws-a-line-between-free-speech-and-hate-crimes
Even your linked articlevsays it is. You just cant make specific and clear threats that you have the ability to follow through on.
Correct.
What the kid said won’t pass the sniff test in court. It’s overly restrictive on political ideology.
Then you weren’t reading clearly. Here’s another source directly from the US Courts:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
Obscenities are not protected. Specific words are, the way that they’re used are not always.
One again, freedom of speech is not absolute. There are limitations.
If you still can’t figure it out from this, then there’s just no getting through to you at all. That’s nobody’s problem but your own.
This wasnt an obscenity
Considering what is “obscene” changes in society over time, it could be argued, which is not protected.
I agree that there’s nothing wrong by the image and the child seemed to mean well, but if it is deemed obscene by society (and a court of law agrees), it is very much not protected.
Definition of obscene: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene