Is this free-speech?

[political_debater]

Does freedom of speech involve hate slurs and obscenity.

Maybe someone can help me out on this.

I had a talk earlier in one of my threads about the first amendment.

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

When I pointed out it was liberals who want to violate free-speech with the fairness-doctrine and localism, and will point the differences in my opinion.


So maybe someone can help me on this. Which is free-speech and not?


1: Gays having the right marry.

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

3: Flag burning.

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

And some liberals seem to want to interfere on regulating free-speech.

The fairness-doctrine would(not put someone off air because of obscenity) but to limit and regulate free-speech period especially putting restrictions on conservative privately owned radio stations.

Against the right to have handguns or really any gun.


And why when someone whines it's free-speech to burn a flag when our founding fathers didn't allow this kind of stuff.

There the ones who made the constitution so wasn't it them who defined free-speech.

It seems people like to say it's free-speech but don't care what the founding fathers defined as free-speech, especially when there the ones who made the constitution in the first place.



I'm just curious if anyone thinks there should still be a limit to what free-speech is despite the first amendment that defines it as dissent or free to express opinion(without obscene gesture) and to change our government on other issues.

Example, does an Anti Iraq-War protester have the right to protest at funerals of dead soldiers with those stupid Westboro Baptist members saying stuff like "your son is burning in hell"?

 

[political_debater]

Does freedom of speech involve hate slurs and obscenity.

Maybe someone can help me out on this.

I had a talk earlier in one of my threads about the first amendment.

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

When I pointed out it was liberals who want to violate free-speech with the fairness-doctrine and localism, and will point the differences in my opinion.


So maybe someone can help me on this. Which is free-speech and not?


1: Gays having the right marry.

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

3: Flag burning.

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

And some liberals seem to want to interfere on regulating free-speech.

The fairness-doctrine would(not put someone off air because of obscenity) but to limit and regulate free-speech period especially putting restrictions on conservative privately owned radio stations.

Against the right to have handguns or really any gun.


And why when someone whines it's free-speech to burn a flag when our founding fathers didn't allow this kind of stuff.

There the ones who made the constitution so wasn't it them who defined free-speech.

It seems people like to say it's free-speech but don't care what the founding fathers defined as free-speech, especially when there the ones who made the constitution in the first place.



I'm just curious if anyone thinks there should still be a limit to what free-speech is despite the first amendment that defines it as dissent or free to express opinion(without obscene gesture) and to change our government on other issues.

Example, does an Anti Iraq-War protester have the right to protest at funerals of dead soldiers with those stupid Westboro Baptist members saying stuff like "your son is burning in hell"?

 

[Baralis]

I am no expert in the matter but I have never believed that free speech granted the ability to say anything you wish without consequences. I believe it was granted so that people were protected against prosecution when speaking out against government. It does not grant you a say whatever you want, where ever you want card.

For example there is a very large difference between saying "Obamas policy would be bad for the country and should not be passed" and saying that "Obama is a no good nigger that has sex with sheep".

Take a look at how things were done shortly after the bill of rights was put into play. People could still be charged with slander for making comments against a person directly. So apparently they did not feel it granted you a say all, about anyone.

Over the years with each generation I feel people have slowly expanded what the general population considers covered in the first amendment but that this is not the original protection.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Does freedom of speech involve hate slurs and obscenity.

You ARE free to spew hateful garbage all day every day, so long as that doesn't involve threats... at that point your speach is breaking another law.

If you deny a white-supremacist his right to free speech then you are denying everyone free speech because the precedent is set.

Maybe someone can help me out on this.

I had a talk earlier in one of my threads about the first amendment.

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

That's not free-speech, that's assault.

When I pointed out it was liberals who want to violate free-speech with the fairness-doctrine and localism, and will point the differences in my opinion.

True.... the right infringes on other rights...

So maybe someone can help me on this. Which is free-speech and not?


1: Gays having the right marry.

Not exactly certain on the laws, but since a church is a private entity it's within the church's rights to deny marrying gays in their church.

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

You're free to act as obsene as you want, so long as you're not breaking any laws, or violating anyone else their rights...

3: Flag burning.

That's a tough one... since it's not really 'speech'

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

That being a threat to public safety would be criminal...

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

That's a bad precedent... although it's socially shunned to be outwardly racist like that he should not have been legally targeted.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

If instead it was singing real loud, there are guidelines for that... typically between 6am-11pm there's nothing that can be done... afterwards it does fall into 'disturbing the peace'

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

It doesn't matter what you say against Obama, it's racist... though it should be protected speech.

And some liberals seem to want to interfere on regulating free-speech.

The fairness-doctrine would(not put someone off air because of obscenity) but to limit and regulate free-speech period especially putting restrictions on conservative privately owned radio stations.

The newer hate-crimes bill takes that even further... where let's say you give a speech, and years later a person hears that speech which motivates him to violence, then you would be criminally liable for inciting that violence.

Against the right to have handguns or really any gun.

That's second ammendment...

And why when someone whines it's free-speech to burn a flag when our founding fathers didn't allow this kind of stuff.

There the ones who made the constitution so wasn't it them who defined free-speech.

It seems people like to say it's free-speech but don't care what the founding fathers defined as free-speech, especially when there the ones who made the constitution in the first place.

Well, it's that burning the flag is disrespectful towards your country... a more appropriate symbol to show the distress of the nation is to fly the flag upside-down....

I'm just curious if anyone thinks there should still be a limit to what free-speech is despite the first amendment that defines it as dissent or free to express opinion(without obscene gesture) and to change our government on other issues.

Free-speech is about protecting UNpopular speech rather then guaranteering popular speech... there naturally has to be SOME legal limits, and that is you are free to speak hate-speech as long as it's not threatening, or creating a seperate crime.

Example, does an Anti Iraq-War protester have the right to protest at funerals of dead soldiers with those stupid Westboro Baptist members saying stuff like "your son is burning in hell"?[/QUOTE]

 

[Redress]

: Gays having the right marry.

What does this have to do with speach?

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

I am pretty sure this is legal.

3: Flag burning.

Free speech

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

Not free speech since it infringes on others safety.

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

Imus is free to say that, other people are free to object and try and lobby to have him fired. Advertisers are free to pull their advertising over it, and NBC is free to fire him over it. "Free speech" refers to legality, and does not mean there might not be social consequences for what you say.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

Not a speech issue I believe, but a disturbing the peace issue.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

Any one is free to call Michelle Obama whatever they want. I am free to call the person who says it an ass.

 

[Zyphlin]

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

Bush Presidential speech or just a speech he gives now? That's important.

1: Gays having the right marry.

Well this isn't really speech so....not free speech?

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

In public assumes its around people. I would actually say not part of free-speech, because society sets forth a general sense of an established norm and acceptability. Its much the same as walking around naked in public. When one is in a public place there is a reasonable expectation that you will be free of certain obscenities up to a certain extent. By crossing this line of expectations while expressing your speech you are in essence infringing upon their rights. This is why I generally don't have issue with obscenity laws to a certain reasonable point. A poster at a political rally can be expected to be charged. If you're taking your kid to Walmart for some shopping its a reasonable expectation that you won't have naked people running about, someone screaming "****" over and over again, or a man standing out front talking about the wonder of pedo-sex.

3: Flag burning.

Freedom of Speech. I find it despicable, but it is a form of legitimate protest. Many conservatives talk about how important it is to have our guns in case we ever have to "over throw" the government....and yet while we acknowledge there could come a time where the United States is actually an oppressive, evil entity that must be over thrown, we can't acknowledge that as such there may be legitimate reasons to protest said government. "Don't take our guns, we may need them later....but make sure you can lock our asses up if we burn the flag before we turn those guns on you!"

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

Not free speech. Again, this time your speech is impacting others ability to be safe by inciting a potential riot.

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

Free Speech. At the same time, the PRIVATE business that contracted him was also free to fire his ass for saying something controversial enough to cause people to be upset with him that caused them to complain to the advertisers that caused advertisers to pull out of the show.

Remember, Free Speech doesn't mean Free of Consequences Speech.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

Not free speech. Again, infringing upon others.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

That's a bad example. The correct example would be "A conservative referring to Michelle Obama as an ape". That would be free speech.

However, again see above. Free Speech is not Free of Consequences Speech. If you're referring to Michelle Obama as an Ape primarily based out of racism, or even not out of racism but perceived as such, you must accept you may have a very negative reaction presented to you. That is THEIR right. No one is required by the constitution to LIKE what you state and its their right to speak and say that they think you shouldn't say such things.

And some liberals seem to want to interfere on regulating free-speech.

Yay for broad-sweeping hyper partisanship. You need some specifics here. Fairness Doctrine? I think that's more of an issue with over government regulation, interference with business, and utilizing the government for political gain more so than a freedom of speech issue.

I see you go after the liberals constantly. What about Conservatives that would try and get cable companies or stores unable to even SELL pornographic material? What about conservatives that wish to censor video games so they can't be sold if they have questionable content in them? ARe those infringements of Freedom of Speech?

Your point and attempt at an actual discussion would work better if you wren't obviously agenda driven from the start and coming at this completely intellectually dishonest.

Against the right to have handguns or really any gun.

If you mean the ability to state you are against the right to have guns, yes that's protected.

And why when someone whines it's free-speech to burn a flag when our founding fathers didn't allow this kind of stuff.

Really? Are you saying the Founding Father's never ever ever desecrated a British flag?

Because, you know, when the "Founding Father's" started there was no "United States of America".

And proof that they "didn't allow" that kind of "stuff"?

Example, does an Anti Iraq-War protester have the right to protest at funerals of dead soldiers with those stupid Westboro Baptist members saying stuff like "your son is burning in hell"?

Sadly yes. Just as Anti-Abortion activists have a right to protest out front of Clinics harassing people that are going through the difficult decision to potentially have an abortion or possibly even just there for birth control for all they know. Just as idiots can sit outside of the DMV talking about "Obama's Nazi Health Care Plan" or "Bush's Nazi Patriot Act". Protests are protected, yes. However I do think reasonable regulations in regards to distance at times...for instance in regards to funerals....is acceptable as well. There's nothing saying private property of a cemetery would HAVE to allow protesters into the cemetery.

 

[Redress]

Sometimes freedom of speech ends up being freedom to be an ass. We are still allowed to see them as asses, and treat them as such. We just cannot arrest them.

 

[B L Zeebub]

freedom of speech is a whore

 

[obvious Child]

Does freedom of speech involve hate slurs and obscenity.

Slander and libel are somewhat gray areas when it comes to free speech. Furthermore, terroristic threatening like "Kill them fags" is also a gray area as it must be backed up with intent and means to follow through to be a violation.

Someone said it's violation of free-speech to to kick protesters in a Bush speech with "No Iraq War" written on there shirts.

More like a violation of right of assembly.

When I pointed out it was liberals who want to violate free-speech with the fairness-doctrine and localism, and will point the differences in my opinion.

First of all, the federal government owns/rents/leases the broadcasting frequencies that radio goes out on. So I can be somewhat justified that the FCC has some say over what you broadcast. The issue is what level of say. It's not the same as standing in your front lawn saying whatever you want.

I'm not sure I understand why you included localism.

1: Gays having the right marry.

Not a free speech issue.

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

Baralis covered.

3: Flag burning.

Legal and should remain legal

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

Intent to cause harm to others has never been a free speech right.

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

You are confusing stupid public acts with the right to free speech. Was his statement covered? Yes. Was it intelligent in the realm where ads are dependent upon listeners and his job is dependent upon ads? No.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

Laws against public nuisance and noise pollution have generally been sustained as legal.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

See Imus issue.

The fairness-doctrine would(not put someone off air because of obscenity) but to limit and regulate free-speech period especially putting restrictions on conservative privately owned radio stations.

Well, by that measure the FCC should have no right to dictate anything. You seem to be unaware of how radio works.

Against the right to have handguns or really any gun.

Not a free speech issue.

And why when someone whines it's free-speech to burn a flag when our founding fathers didn't allow this kind of stuff.

There's no clear law in the US history barring it. Furthermore, it is rather hypocritical and undermining to bar the burning of the flag which in essence represents freedoms.

It seems people like to say it's free-speech but don't care what the founding fathers defined as free-speech, especially when there the ones who made the constitution in the first place.

Except you have not stated what the founders defined as free speech and many of your examples are not free speech issues. Furthermore, you seem to confuse free speech with market principles. Merely because something is legal to be said does not mean that one's boss will back them up on it when it hurts the bottom line.

I'm just curious if anyone thinks there should still be a limit to what free-speech is despite the first amendment that defines it as dissent or free to express opinion(without obscene gesture) and to change our government on other issues.

The current status now seems to be appropriate.

Example, does an Anti Iraq-War protester have the right to protest at funerals of dead soldiers with those stupid Westboro Baptist members saying stuff like "your son is burning in hell"?

Yes. They do. Do we have to like it? No. But the instance you start banning things you don't like, you start America down a very dangerous road.

Hopefully you will actually reply to this thread unlike you many other abandoned threads.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Slander and libel are somewhat gray areas when it comes to free speech. Furthermore, terroristic threatening like "Kill them fags" is also a gray area as it must be backed up with intent and means to follow through to be a violation.



More like a violation of right of assembly.



First of all, the federal government owns/rents/leases the broadcasting frequencies that radio goes out on. So I can be somewhat justified that the FCC has some say over what you broadcast. The issue is what level of say. It's not the same as standing in your front lawn saying whatever you want.

I'm not sure I understand why you included localism.



Not a free speech issue.



Baralis covered.



Legal and should remain legal



Intent to cause harm to others has never been a free speech right.



You are confusing stupid public acts with the right to free speech. Was his statement covered? Yes. Was it intelligent in the realm where ads are dependent upon listeners and his job is dependent upon ads? No.



Laws against public nuisance and noise pollution have generally been sustained as legal.



See Imus issue.



Well, by that measure the FCC should have no right to dictate anything. You seem to be unaware of how radio works.



Not a free speech issue.



There's no clear law in the US history barring it. Furthermore, it is rather hypocritical and undermining to bar the burning of the flag which in essence represents freedoms.



Except you have not stated what the founders defined as free speech and many of your examples are not free speech issues. Furthermore, you seem to confuse free speech with market principles. Merely because something is legal to be said does not mean that one's boss will back them up on it when it hurts the bottom line.



The current status now seems to be appropriate.



Yes. They do. Do we have to like it? No. But the instance you start banning things you don't like, you start America down a very dangerous road.

Hopefully you will actually reply to this thread unlike you many other abandoned threads.

I'd charge him a few quid for the above.

 

[JW Frogen]

Free speech involves all that and more, say what you will and more.

I want to know what people are really thinking, it gives you a clue as to what they will really do.

 

[B L Zeebub]

free speech is a craven open-arsed harpy:lol:

 

[JW Frogen]

Sort of like my wife, but I will never leave her. I like it like that.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Sort of like my wife, but I will never leave her. I like it like that.

not at all like your fragrant wife, you impertinant puke-stockinged codpiece

 

[liblady]

I am no expert in the matter but I have never believed that free speech granted the ability to say anything you wish without consequences. I believe it was granted so that people were protected against prosecution when speaking out against government. It does not grant you a say whatever you want, where ever you want card.

For example there is a very large difference between saying "Obamas policy would be bad for the country and should not be passed" and saying that "Obama is a no good nigger that has sex with sheep".

Take a look at how things were done shortly after the bill of rights was put into play. People could still be charged with slander for making comments against a person directly. So apparently they did not feel it granted you a say all, about anyone.

Over the years with each generation I feel people have slowly expanded what the general population considers covered in the first amendment but that this is not the original protection.

there's a difference between exercising your right to free speech and dealing with whatever consequences might occur as a result.

 

[political_debater]

First of all, the federal government owns/rents/leases the broadcasting frequencies that radio goes out on. So I can be somewhat justified that the FCC has some say over what you broadcast. The issue is what level of say. It's not the same as standing in your front lawn saying whatever you want.

Who pays money to the federal government? The taxpayers?

I'm not sure I understand why you included localism.

Localism is another attempt from liberals to limit what people can hear and see. Such as have a boardcommitting or something to vote on what should be shown within a community.

Well, by that measure the FCC should have no right to dictate anything. You seem to be unaware of how radio works.

Well, conservatives own there own stations so they can do waht they want. But it's tax payer money that goes to the federal government.

The government represents us, not the other way around.

 

[political_debater]

Well this isn't really speech so....not free speech?

When I say free-speech, I'm referring to movement and freedom to marry anything you want and such.

Really? Are you saying the Founding Father's never ever ever desecrated a British flag?

Because, you know, when the "Founding Father's" started there was no "United States of America".

And proof that they "didn't allow" that kind of "stuff"?

Well, I never don't know if they did, but they're against desecrating there own flag.

For example, I'm against when people desecrate the American flag that represents freedom and happy to desecrate the Chinese flag because it's a symbol of repression.

Sadly yes. Just as Anti-Abortion activists have a right to protest out front of Clinics harassing people that are going through the difficult decision to potentially have an abortion or possibly even just there for birth control for all they know. Just as idiots can sit outside of the DMV talking about "Obama's Nazi Health Care Plan" or "Bush's Nazi Patriot Act". Protests are protected, yes. However I do think reasonable regulations in regards to distance at times...for instance in regards to funerals....is acceptable as well. There's nothing saying private property of a cemetery would HAVE to allow protesters into the cemetery.

Why would women feel bad and care if they one: choose to get the abortion, and two: if it's not even life until it's born?

 

[political_debater]

That's not free-speech, that's assault.

I meant kick protesters out, not kick protesters.

Not exactly certain on the laws, but since a church is a private entity it's within the church's rights to deny marrying gays in their church.

Interesting, I never thought of it that way.

You're free to act as obsene as you want, so long as you're not breaking any laws, or violating anyone else their rights...

AHHH, but what about the children?

That's a tough one... since it's not really 'speech'

Flag burning is expression and movement.

The newer hate-crimes bill takes that even further... where let's say you give a speech, and years later a person hears that speech which motivates him to violence, then you would be criminally liable for inciting that violence.

Like who?

That's second ammendment...

My point is it's in the constitution on the "Bill of Rights" which protect the individual from government harrasement.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I meant kick protesters out, not kick protesters.

You can kick protestors out of a private function, or off private property... however, you can't stop someone from protesting (legally) outside the venue.

AHHH, but what about the children?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Like who?

The bill I don't believe has passed to law yet, I can't remember the bill number... but it's the bill that Hannah Montana (whatever the actress' name is) supported citing that calling people 'f*t' was hurtful and all... I'll be honest, I don't remember too much more then that, but it was summarized as say you spread a message that gay's are evil (as example) and say 5 years later someone comes across the message and decides to act out on that message by commiting an act of violence... you become liable for inciting that action through your speech.

Of course, even if I had all the facts on hand there's people that would tell me it's not real... so whatever.

My point is it's in the constitution on the "Bill of Rights" which protect the individual from government harrasement.

I just didn't want to add a gun debate so I kept it simple.

 

[Alex Libman]

The government should not exist, and all interactions between human beings should be governed by their natural rights.

1: Gays having the right marry.

A natural right based on self-ownership and freedom of contract. The same applies to polygamy and even indentured servitude.

2: Obscenity in public such as cussing or saying explicit sexual material in public.

Saying that something takes place "in public" is meaningless - every patch of earth and any other space that human beings can inhabit should be explicitly owned by an individual (or a group of individuals, like a corporation). It is then up to the owner(s) to set rules for a given space, and anyone who doesn't agree with those rules can go elsewhere.

3: Flag burning.

You obviously can't damage the property of others, but if you own the flag then it is your right to burn it. If the smoke goes on your neighbor's property then he may be able to sue you, but that's a separate issue.

4: Yelling fire without one in a crowded or any theater.

That's up to the theater owners - they should be able to kick you out for yelling anything. (This forum is a good analogy of property owners setting the rules and the visitors agreeing to follow them.)

5: Don Imus saying "nappy headed hos" which got him off air and sued by the girl he said about.

He has the right to say whatever he wants, and his network has the right to fire him (barring any contractual obligations that say otherwise). This is a great example of how non-violent consumer activism, or the mere possibility of it, can influence a business to be more sensitive to public opinion.

6: Playing music real loud and disturbing the peace of any area of a neighborhood.

That would depend on the contractual obligations and other agreements that exist between neighbors, whether unilaterally or as a group (ex. neighborhood association - the building block of an anarchist society). In absence of an existing contract, it would be up to the neighbors to negotiate amongst themselves and compromise, and/or agree to follow the rulings of a specific arbitration agency they might employ. Neighbors inevitably have an intensive to cooperate: I scratch your back, you scratch mine; you soundproof your garage, I let you use my access road toll-free; etc, etc, etc.

7: Or a conservative getting in trouble for referring Michelle Obama to an Ape.

Free speech. There should be no laws against libel, defamation, slander, and the like. Michelle Obama does not own your mouth, your written word, or the opinion of her in the minds of others.

 

[political_debater]

Ok, so all you guys believe in some limitations. It's just some idiots don't get that.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Free speech is all inclusive except for slander, indecent exposure, and things that put people in danger (i.e. yelling fire in a movie theater or putting the names of top secret CIA operatives in the NY Times). This includs flag burning, slurs, hatefulness, obscenity, and all of the other things that one may hate. With freedom, you take the bitter with the sweet.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Ok, so all you guys believe in some limitations. It's just some idiots don't get that.

Yes, there has to be some limitations or else it would just be anarchy... not the tree hugging kind of anarchy either.

That said, we need to be VERY cautious when imposing these limitations or else you risk setting precedents that will lead to the end of those freedoms altogether.

The government should not exist, and all interactions between human beings should be governed by their natural rights.

You are proposing some sort of anarchism, right? If we lived in a polite, caring, responsible culture of mutual benefits then I could see moving to a system with no government... however, anarchy, historically speaking has just been a 'middle ground' between governmental systems... unfortunately many times in an anarchy the strongest will gather support and will take over and form a government... typically some form of oligarchy.

A republic IS the best way to go... That is a law of the land that is applicable to everyone regardless of position. Democracy is probably the worst, since if 51% can be convinced to kill the other 49% then it happens.

Tired rant, I hope that came out as I intended.

 

[Travelsonic]

This includs flag burning, slurs, hatefulness, obscenity, and all of the other things that one may hate. With freedom, you take the bitter with the sweet.

Are those things included in the "is free speech" or included in the "is not free speech" category in your opinion? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Are those things included in the "is free speech" or included in the "is not free speech" category in your opinion? I'm genuinely confused.

Free speech (10charachters)