Ann Coulter

[emzie]

Congress shall make no law blah blah blah, abridging the freedom of speech.

That's what the Constitution says. I am pretty sure (hyperbole) that the Constitution doesn't say that each American has the right to say whatever he or she wishes. It merely says the government may not limit what people say.

Where precisely does it say people have the freedom to say whatever they wish to say?

If the government may not abridge the right to free speech, who else can?

 

[Bill3000]

Civil courts are run by the government, by the way

 

[Dreadnought]

If the government may not limit what people say, doesn't that automatically give them freedom to say anything?

I don't see your argument!

If the government may not abridge the right to free speech, who else can?

The government may not limit what people have to say. When people say things to other people that are potentially wrong, we have civil courts to deal with that.

But the government could never take an individual to court because of speech.

Sweet heyzeus.

Civil courts are run by the government, by the way

Yes, out of necessity. But many judges actively rule in opposition to the current government on legal issues.

 

[illram]

It merely says the government may not limit what people say.

Good, now you're getting it. Can you see the difference between that statement and this one?

The freedom of speech is only the freedom to speak up against your government.

edit: while I was typing you said this...

When people say things to other people that are potentially wrong, we have civil courts to deal with that.

And civil courts are run by......

 

[Karalysia]

But the government could never take an individual to court because of speech.

Sedition.

 

[Bill3000]

Or inciting a riot, or child porn...

 

[Dreadnought]

Good, now you're getting it. Can you see the difference between that statement and this one?

And civil courts are run by......

I answered the second part above.

As for the first part, the Constitution says nothing about what you are allowed to say to other individuals, citizens, foreign aliens, etc. It only says that Congress may not limit what you say.

This is evolving into a classic Jefferson-Hamilton debate.

 

[Karalysia]

Or inciting a riot, or child porn...

Or being a Communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debs_v._United_States

In its ruling on Debs v. United States, the Court examined several statements Debs had made regarding the war. While Debs had carefully guarded his speeches in an attempt to comply with the Espionage Act, the Court found he had still shown the "intention and effect of obstructing the draft and recruitment for the war." Among other things, the Court cited Debs's praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft. In his opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated that little attention was needed since Debs's case was essentially the same as Schenck v. United States, where the Court upheld a similar conviction. The Supreme Court decided against Debs, and maintained the power of the Espionage Act, sentencing Debs to ten years imprisonment, and a loss of his citizenship.

 

[Bill3000]

As for the first part, the Constitution says nothing about what you are allowed to say to other individuals, citizens, foreign aliens, etc. It only says that Congress may not limit what you say.

Who decides what you are allowed to say to other individuals, ultimately?

 

[illram]

I answered the second part above.

As for the first part, the Constitution says nothing about what you are allowed to say to other individuals, citizens, foreign aliens, etc. It only says that Congress may not limit what you say.

This is evolving into a classic Jefferson-Hamilton debate.

lol no we're not close to a Jefferson-Hamilton debate.

Who enforces what you can or cannot say to other individuals? To put it another way, and this is only a hypothetical, if I saw you on the street and called you a pea-brained moron and you sued me, where would you file your lawsuit?

 

[Quackers]

Aren't you British?

he's from San Francisco

I'm sure there are people who live in San Francisco who are not American nationals....

well illram?

 

[Dreadnought]

Who decides what you are allowed to say to other individuals, ultimately?

lol no we're not close to a Jefferson-Hamilton debate.

Who enforces what you can or cannot say to other individuals? To put it another way, and this is only a hypothetical, if I saw you on the street and called you a pea-brained moron and you sued me, where would you file your lawsuit?

A jury and/or judge. Both of whom, while summoned (and paid by) by the government, are not controlled by the government.

Why do you think most judges (including the Supreme Court) serve for life? So they are not influenced by the currently-elected government and instead make ruling based on the law and by their own, individual reason.

 

[Karalysia]

A jury and/or judge. Both of whom, while summoned by the government, are not controlled by the government.

Appointed by the government in the case of district court judges.

Why do you think most judged (including the Supreme Court) serve for life? So they are not influenced by the currently-elected government and instead make ruling based on the law and by their own, individual reason.

And you believe that's true?

 

[Dreadnought]

And you believe that's true?

Well, now, if you are going to use that argument, then there is no point in this discussion, because we are resorting to conspiracy theories and all rather than facts.

 

[illram]

I'm sure there are people who live in San Francisco who are not American nationals....

well illram?

I'm 'merican, but lived in England for 7 years or so. I'm also eminently classy so I can see why people might mistake me for one of our more proper friends cross the pond.

 

[Bill3000]

A jury and/or judge. Both of whom, while summoned (and paid by) by the government, are not controlled by the government.

They're not "controlled" by the government, they are the government. They derive their authority through the government through the legislature (common or legislative law) and constitutions (state and federal) creating and defining the power of the positions.

 

[Karalysia]

Well, now, if you are going to use that argument, then there is no point in this discussion, because we are resorting to conspiracy theories and all rather than facts.

You are confusing ideals and intention with reality. I suggest you read some SCOTUS cases. Gonzalez v. Raich, Bush v. Gore, Kelo v. New London, and Citizens United v. FEC and another one that escapes me for some reason.

 

[Quackers]

I'm 'merican, but lived in England for 7 years or so. I'm also eminently classy so I can see why people might mistake me for one of our more proper friends cross the pond.

Carry on then good sir

 

[Karalysia]

I'm 'merican, but lived in England for 7 years or so. I'm also eminently classy so I can see why people might mistake me for one of our more proper friends cross the pond.

Did you practice law in London? If so, how difficult is it to practice abroad if you've gone to law school in the US? Was it international law by any chance? BTW if one were intending to go into civil rights/constitutional law how broad is the field in terms of job opportunities, I've heard that one can do GP and still do civil rights law. Do you happen to know anything about that?

 

[Dreadnought]

They're not "controlled" by the government, they are the government. They derive their authority through the government through the legislature (common or legislative law) and constitutions (state and federal) creating and defining the power of the positions.

They "are" the government, but they're not controlled by the government.

(Classic examples being Worcester v. Georgia and Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, amongst the other New Deal legislation-related cases; the Courts did not follow suit with the current elected government based on legal grounds.)