4 ms·
In the US, the 1st amendment and current case law don't support restricting that kind of speech. Only if there's an immediate, specific reaction, can the speech
by kinghajj 7y ago
In the US, the 1st amendment and current case law don't support restricting that kind of speech. Only if there's an immediate, specific reaction, can the speech be curtailed, and even then it's difficult. Trying to incite a riot, for instance, can be restricted, as it could have the immediate effect of causing a riot in the area. Saying a mass shooter's name doesn't cause an immediate response, nor can you specifically say who or where will be affected, so under the current case law, cannot be restricted.
- zaarn 7y agoWell then it seems the 1st amendment ought to be fixed if it's that obviously broken.
- jki275 7y agoNo. Free speech is a natural right enshrined in our Constitution, and it’s not “obviously broken”. It’s a fundamental principle of our country. Journalist must be free to report. Now, they could certainly be more responsible, as in this case - but it’s not the governments prerogative to make them so.
- zaarn 7y agoSounds to me like it's not only broken but it should be moved from the constitution to the bible if it's that religious for you.
- jki275 7y agoThe first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Those are fundamental values of the American culture from its beginning. That's not "broken" just because you don't like it. We chose a different path from the broken European model.
- zaarn 7y agoWell good luck with your broken path, we tried them all in Europe. Don't forget we have literally two thousand years of experience.
- jki275 7y agoYeah, feudalism is definitely a better path. lol. You are aware that our founding fathers had the benefit of all that thousands of years of experience to inform how they created our form of government, right?