‘Free speech’ was intended to allow unfettered criticism of the government, right up to the point of advocating violence. Many other kinds of speech may be and are prohibited. The idea that the original intent of the Founders was that pornography or ‘fighting words’ were covered by ‘freedom of speech’ is beyond ignorant.
Fighting words are free speech. Outright threats are not - but these are not (read the examples - you should, you need to be - not you will or I will )
Otherwise the very words “he needs to be tarred and feathered” should land me and us in prison and banned from the internet.
And YET being banned from the internet, fired from your work, denied accesss to banks because of your words is approved actions by the left.
>
‘Free speech’ was intended to allow unfettered criticism of the government, right up to the point of advocating violence. Many other kinds of speech may be and are prohibited. The idea that the original intent of the Founders was that pornography or ‘fighting words’ were covered by ‘freedom of speech’ is beyond ignorant.
>
Tar & feathering are far from non-violent, no?
Were the calls leading up to, into and through, the Battle of Athens ‘free speech’?