Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

donnerboy

Subscribe to donnerboy's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Thursday, December 05, 2024

President Joe Biden's senior aides are conducting a vigorous internal debate over whether to issue preemptive pardons to a range of current and former public officials who could be targeted with President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House, according to senior Democrats familiar with the discussions. read more


Monday, December 02, 2024

Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Sunday night, a reversal for the president, who repeatedly said he would not use his executive authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence. read more


Wednesday, October 02, 2024

Doris Towers awoke to the beeping of her husband's dialysis machine early Friday morning, meaning it had lost power. Her neighbor's Christmas lights, still up from last year, had gone out. Those were early hints of Helene's destruction to come. She hadn't known a storm was on the way. read more


Comments

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.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable