3 ms·
But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such
by shevy-java 3mo ago
But this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights. Free speech unfortunately does not exist anywhere. Even the USA has restrictions, such as "speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence" or some other restrictions with regards to "offensive" words and minors or similar. Or, even simpler, to talk very loudly in public late at night. So free speech is not unlimited, despite its name.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> this assumes that a bill is required to establish fundamental rights No, it assumes a bill is required to establish consequences for fundamental rights being denied.
- redsocksfan45 3mo ago[dead]
- dmix 3mo ago> speech aimed at inciting quick reaction/violence Speech alone isnt sufficient to be charged with that, which is why it passed supreme Court scrutiny. Similar to criminal conspiracy laws, where you have to pursue tangible actions IRL not just talk about it with a friend.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoCredible threats of violence are illegal despite "only" being speech. Also "obscene" material without any other redeeming quality. So there are definitely exceptions in the US. Also I believe you are wrong about incitement. It is the speech itself that is illegal, you (ie the speaker) don't have to do anything yourself or even really know or otherwise interact with the would be perpetrators.
- cramer4next 3mo ago[dead]
- dotancohen 3mo ago[dead]