Oxford English Dictionary definition of Freedom: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants."
Webster's American Dictionary definition of Freedom: "Unrestricted use".
Thus the dictionary definition would agree with the definition of "Freedom of speech" being absolute. The legal definition may disagree, however, my argument to that would follow:
Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme law of the land." Which loosely translated means "This Constitution and any laws which support this Constitution shall take precedence over everything else." Consequently, while the "Yelling Fire! in a theatre law," which may have been upheld by the Supreme Court, and which are probably more for the good than bad, and certainly protects more people than it harms, is actually an illegal law under the Constitution as it seeks to restrict your first amendment rights - which is quite contrary to the Constitution.
The wording is explicit. If the wording is not permissive enough for the government and legal system to cope with, then an amendment must be proposed and ratified. There are no amendments to the constitution that say "guarantees the freedom of speech, except where we can convince the Supreme Court to pass a law that restricts that in our favor." The Constitution is quite clear and explicit - "Congress shall make no law" so any law that has passed that serves to restrict your Constitutional rights are illegal in the eyes of the Constitution.
Thus your freedom of speech, in the eyes of the Constitution is absolute. It is only an illegal law, which agreed, made in the best interest of the people, in violation of the Constitution that restricts those First Amendment rights.
So what takes precedence? The Constitution or the law? What happens when they conflict? Well the Constitution covers that... "no law shall be passed" which conflicts with the Constitution. So the question becomes what is more powerful, the Constitution or the Supreme Court? I think that can only be answered by the people.
Why am I, as a non-American and non-resident of the United States, debating in defense of your Constitional rights and you as an American (is that a fair assumption?) are debating against it? That seems a little topsy turvy, no?
> Freedom of speech means freedom from government intervention
No, the first amendment of the US constitution means freedom from government intervention. Freedom of speech means exactly what it says - violating it isn't illegal if you're a private company, but that doesn't change what it means.
The definition of "freedom of speech" is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" (Oxford Dictionary). It does not say anything about the 1st Amendment.
You are talking about the 1st amendment. Free speech is a principle whereas the 1st amendment restricts the government from violating that principle in its relations with the populace.
> "freedom of speech" (I know that the first amendment
Freedom of speech is different than the first amendment. The first amendment prohibits the government from limiting freedom of speech, but the concept itself is more general than the law.
>The meaning of free speech is clearly defined in the United States by the First Amendment. QED.
No, it isn't.
Here is the text of the First Amendment, verbatim:
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.
Freedom of speech (literally "the freedom of speech") is never defined in the First Amendment, merely referred to in the context of a list of freedoms that Congress is prohibited from abridging, the definitions for which are assumed to already be understood by the reader.
Yes, hardly any constitutional rights are absolutes in American law. But you'll find a million examples of this in caselaw where the rights are considered with very carefully worded maybes and conditionals for edge cases (ie. searching a phone but only for particular images as to not totally intrude on their privacy).
>Freedom of speech is a right provided by the constitution
No, it is not. It explicitly is not. Freedom of speech is one right among many other unstated rights held in common by the people. The first amendment merely prohibits Congress from passing a law that restricts it. The wording is clear that this freedom is something that exists inherently beyond the scope of the Constitution, and is certainly not "provided" by the document. We naturally have rights such as freedom of speech. It is from institutions like the government that restrictions are placed on them.
Also, the 9th amendment was included precisely to clarify and codify the fact that the Constitution, in enumerating the rights, is not itself granting those rights or even stating that these are the only rights people have.
Are you confusing the american first amendment with the concept of freedom of speech? Freedom of Speech is a much broader concept then just the first amendment.
> Freedom of expression only protects you from the government, like freedom of speech, no?
No. In the US, the first amendment to the US Constitution only applies to the government. "Freedom of speech" is a concept with general applicability. People opposed to freedom of speech often intentionally conflate the two but they really are separate things. There may be a genuine argument about what any particular actor should do w/r/t speech - should they adopt a permissive, "freedom of speech" attitude, should they restrict speech, etc. But "freedom of speech only applies to the government" is not a genuine argument, because it's not an argument at all, it's a conclusory statement (and false).
Freedom of speech exists as a philosophical concept outside of the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment is simply the application of that concept to the American constitution.
The amendment is just one minor manifestation of a very fundamental cultural value. People who do not believe in freedom of speech will often excuse curtailment of it when such curtailment is not prohibited by the amendment, as freedom of speech is just that one law. So no, the amendment LITERALLY is not what freedom of speech is.
As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.
That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government.
No, it damn well is not.
Freedom of speech is the principle, the first amendment is the law. The law protects a principle our society has deemed important. The principle exists with or without a government.
Webster's American Dictionary definition of Freedom: "Unrestricted use".
Thus the dictionary definition would agree with the definition of "Freedom of speech" being absolute. The legal definition may disagree, however, my argument to that would follow:
Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme law of the land." Which loosely translated means "This Constitution and any laws which support this Constitution shall take precedence over everything else." Consequently, while the "Yelling Fire! in a theatre law," which may have been upheld by the Supreme Court, and which are probably more for the good than bad, and certainly protects more people than it harms, is actually an illegal law under the Constitution as it seeks to restrict your first amendment rights - which is quite contrary to the Constitution.
The wording is explicit. If the wording is not permissive enough for the government and legal system to cope with, then an amendment must be proposed and ratified. There are no amendments to the constitution that say "guarantees the freedom of speech, except where we can convince the Supreme Court to pass a law that restricts that in our favor." The Constitution is quite clear and explicit - "Congress shall make no law" so any law that has passed that serves to restrict your Constitutional rights are illegal in the eyes of the Constitution.
Thus your freedom of speech, in the eyes of the Constitution is absolute. It is only an illegal law, which agreed, made in the best interest of the people, in violation of the Constitution that restricts those First Amendment rights.
So what takes precedence? The Constitution or the law? What happens when they conflict? Well the Constitution covers that... "no law shall be passed" which conflicts with the Constitution. So the question becomes what is more powerful, the Constitution or the Supreme Court? I think that can only be answered by the people.
Why am I, as a non-American and non-resident of the United States, debating in defense of your Constitional rights and you as an American (is that a fair assumption?) are debating against it? That seems a little topsy turvy, no?
reply