Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Sick of certain Packers tweeting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 436848" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">The freedom we enjoy as Americans is of course precious and I hope everyone has that uppermost in mind in early November of this year. But our freedom is not absolute. The First Amendment protects our right to freely exercise our religious beliefs but not absolutely: Those whose religions allow plural marriage are not free to practice polygamy. The freedom of the press isn’t absolute either as there are laws against libel. We have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances but laws against sedition are constitutional. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Neither is our freedom of speech absolute. As recently as 1969 the Supreme Court refined the test for exclusions to our freedom of speech. If speech is intended to incite violence or harm and if that violence or harm is immanent and likely, it is not constitutionally protected. So yelling fire in a crowded theater if the yeller knows there is no fire, is not protected speech. Of course if no one is harmed, it wouldn’t get into the court system but harm is not an element of test, only the <em>immanent likelihood</em> of harm. Obscenity and “incitement to crime” are also exceptions to freedom of speech. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Another exception is “fighting words”. This is a quote from Chaplinsky v.New Hampshire, a Supreme Court decision decided in 1942: </span></span><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"> <u>ht</u></span></span><a href="http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm#chaplinsky" target="_blank"><u><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><u>tp</u>://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm#chaplinsky</span></u></a></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">As I said the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the United States are precious and they are unsurpassed in world history. They just aren’t absolute. </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 436848, member: 4300"] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]The freedom we enjoy as Americans is of course precious and I hope everyone has that uppermost in mind in early November of this year. But our freedom is not absolute. The First Amendment protects our right to freely exercise our religious beliefs but not absolutely: Those whose religions allow plural marriage are not free to practice polygamy. The freedom of the press isn’t absolute either as there are laws against libel. We have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances but laws against sedition are constitutional. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]Neither is our freedom of speech absolute. As recently as 1969 the Supreme Court refined the test for exclusions to our freedom of speech. If speech is intended to incite violence or harm and if that violence or harm is immanent and likely, it is not constitutionally protected. So yelling fire in a crowded theater if the yeller knows there is no fire, is not protected speech. Of course if no one is harmed, it wouldn’t get into the court system but harm is not an element of test, only the [I]immanent likelihood[/I] of harm. Obscenity and “incitement to crime” are also exceptions to freedom of speech. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]Another exception is “fighting words”. This is a quote from Chaplinsky v.New Hampshire, a Supreme Court decision decided in 1942: [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma] [U]ht[/U][/FONT][/COLOR][URL='http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm#chaplinsky'][COLOR=windowtext][U][FONT=Tahoma][U]tp[/U]://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/fightingwords/casesummaries.htm#chaplinsky[/FONT][/U][/COLOR][/URL] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]As I said the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the United States are precious and they are unsurpassed in world history. They just aren’t absolute. [/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Today at 12:29 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Cornelius Weems
Today at 12:05 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:29 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 7:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:52 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Sick of certain Packers tweeting
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
