2 ms·

So, if something was violated I assume there will be a court case that will ultimately decide if this was the case?

• sam_lowry_ 7y ago
  If someone was raped, I assume there will be a court case that will ultimately decide if this was the case?
  • widowlark 7y ago
    correct
• SilasX 7y ago
  "Well, as it turns out, your Hollywood career promptly ended and you were blacklisted by every studio for saying, in the middle of the 50s Red Scare, that Karl Marx had some good ideas about the sociology of capital. But a court ruled that none of that treatment violated the First Amendment, therefore no one is allowed to be worried or have any negative emotion about what happened you, and hence no one's speech could have been chilled into silence by those events."
  • widowlark 7y ago
    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. McCarthyism was a direct violation of the first amendment. This does not compare.
    • SilasX 7y ago
      Did you miss that I was referring to the non-Congressional aspect of the Red Scare i.e. the studios privately blacklisting communist sympathizers? In case anyone missed my general point there, it was: One can be worried about the chilling effects on speech, regardless of who is doing it; dismissing such concerns "because it didn't violate a law"[1] is confused, and a kind of category error. [1] edit: or, in your case, relying on a court for all relevant judgments about this matter