1A says otherwise.
#16 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER
Showing once again you do not understand the 1st Amendment.
Like all constitutional rights your freedom of speech is not unlimited.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed.2d. (1919):
"The question," he wrote, "is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of the defendants for conspiring to violate certain federal statutes by attempting to incite subordination in the armed forces and interfere with recruitment and enlistment. During wartime, the defendants mailed to new recruits and enlisted men leaflets that compared military conscription to involuntary servitude and urged them to assert constitutional rights.
Speech can be restricted during times of war.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d. 430 (1969):
The Supreme Court established the modern version of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, holding that states only could restrict speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action."
There are circumstances where speech can be legally restricted.
As a side note there are more cases against book banning (your favorite method of restricting free speech) than anything else. Americans apparently love to try restrict free speech by banning books.
