Oh, the stated position is quite clear. The stated position is that you are going to be completely unable to understand, in an afternoon, the nuances of a topi

Oh, the stated position is quite clear. The stated position is that you are going to be completely unable to understand, in an afternoon, the nuances of a topic, for which people spend their lives studying. Thus, if you actually care about the topic, you need to read the supreme court cases or the numerous literature on the topic. Otherwise, you are not going to be able to understand what the supreme court even does, or why they do it, when there is thousands of pages of reasoning, on this stuff. > surely we should be able to say why it is so and apply the same reason elsewhere And I am saying that such discussions require you to actually read the primary sources here, which is books and books, and court case after court case. Sorry, but complicated topics are not solved by people debating a paragraph here and there. Yes, you will actually have to take a class on this, or read books on this, to understand it. Sorry, that's just life. When you ask extremely general and expansive questions, about philosophy, such as "what is the difference between different speech", unfortunately these are topic for which there is lifetimes of work discussing it, and you are not going to be able to have a debate in a couple paragraphs on it.