There is a legal definition of free speech, I was trying to remember it. That is not my personal view. My personal view is that the limit should be when it infringes on the freedom of others. Defining that point if of course, hazy at best. Please don't tell me you believe in absolute rights, that truly is farcical. You do not have absolute free speech, for a start slander/libel laws come into play, trade secret laws, protection of government secrets, thousands of other technicalities etc come into play.
This page covers all this damn well.
To quote:
Quote:
|
First of all, no one takes the literal command "no" to mean no. Justice Hugo Black (1937-1971) was the last one to believe that "Congress shall make no law" means Congress shall make no law. Such an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment leaves no restrictions on obscenity, libel, or slander. More predominant interpretations look at speech as distinct from speech plus (speech plus other conduct, commonly called demonstrations or protests), conduct, or the effects of speech. Congress has every right in the world to control these things.
|
So stop claiming you have an absolute right to say whatever you want, no one does. Ever. Realpolitik people.
Indeed, no wonder we can't get along, you live in the land of abstract rights, I’m dealing with reality.