Liberals: Freedom of speech for me but not for thee

[Straight Shooter]

Examples of what is allowed under the 1st Amendment:

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Examples of what is not:


Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)


Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)

These are all clear secondary rulings.

When I get appointed to SCOTUS, I'll let you clerk for me.

Quit getting generic answers from blogs about 1st Amendment rights from leftists with an agenda that want to circumvent 1st Amendment rights when it suits their purpose.

Schenck dealt with sedition. Roth v. U.S dealt with obscenity. Bethel School District dealt with school speech. None have any relevance to what we are talking about here. I'm aware of what is allowed and not allowed under the 1st. I'm still unable to find any legal scholar that says the 1st does not only apply to oppressive government. The govt did not shut down Trump's rally. He did. Contrary to what Trump said the police never advised him to cancel the rally. To say that protestors canceled his rally is to say that the protestors are authority and have the power to do so. You're conflating crime/illegal acts with 1st amendment violations. The two are not the same

If you dont like my generic answers take it up with Justin Amash

 

[Jack Davenport]

Schenck dealt with sedition. Roth v. U.S dealt with obscenity. Bethel School District dealt with school speech. None have any relevance to what we are talking about here. I'm aware of what is allowed and not allowed under the 1st. I'm still unable to find any legal scholar that says the 1st does not only apply to oppressive government. The govt did not shut down Trump's rally. He did. Contrary to what Trump said the police never advised him to cancel the rally. To say that protestors canceled his rally is to say that the protestors are authority and have the power to do so.

If people organize and it causes a disruption that can cause harm to others the government can intervene. That is exactly what happened Friday night and Trump wisely recognized the potential for danger, canceled and yes his 1st Amendment rights were violated as of those that wanted to attend the rally.

From the Schenck ruling: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used 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 a right to prevent."

That clearly speaks to such behavior as took place in Chicago and it does not solely address sedition. It also allows government to prevent disruptors from imposing on others 1st Amendment rights. The equal protection clause is also in play here.

I find it ironic that the left are engaging in mental gymnastics to follow the 1st Amendment when it suits their fascist tactics but the constitution is a living breathing and antiquated document when it does not.