This article is on fire. Bill bringing the heat. C.S. Lewis makes the point that freedom, by definition, has to transcend the state. If the state defines what freedom is, then it’s not actually freedom. Freedom has to transcend the state by definition.
The only really important part of the US First Amendment is "no law respecting". As a veteran of free speech wars in Canada, I used to look it up and reread it during the most difficult hours. As soon as the government is permitted to contemplate the situations - that do not involve clear and obvious harm to others - in which it can restrict speech, thousands of bureaucrats salivate.
How bad it can get? Churches burn down in Canada while legislators contemplate making it a crime (denialism) to state that the alleged murders that sparked the arsons never happened.
There is no actual evidence that they happened. But people here could lose our right to say there is no evidence. That is why "no law respecting" could be important if we had it.
Thanks for another informative and thought-provoking article, Bill. You clearly have a very analytical mind. I was impressed with your list of 20 limitations on free speech. It had never occurred to me that there were so many exceptions.
I can think of one more though. You are not allowed to drive around residential neighborhoods at 3:00 am (or any time, for that matter) and shout slogans over a PA system at high volume. That's disturbing the peace.
Also, the wording of the First Amendment has always bothered me a bit. It says, "Congress shall make no law ..." Does that imply that states and localities are free to pass such laws? I recall Ann Coulter claiming many years ago that it does, but the Supreme Court apparently does not agree. It seems to me that they could have worded it a bit more clearly, such as "No law shall be passed ..."--- unless they really intended to let the states pass such laws.
This article is on fire. Bill bringing the heat. C.S. Lewis makes the point that freedom, by definition, has to transcend the state. If the state defines what freedom is, then it’s not actually freedom. Freedom has to transcend the state by definition.
https://youtube.com/shorts/etHkSX88z6Q?si=f-Vo8EFm2cCSrzz7
The only really important part of the US First Amendment is "no law respecting". As a veteran of free speech wars in Canada, I used to look it up and reread it during the most difficult hours. As soon as the government is permitted to contemplate the situations - that do not involve clear and obvious harm to others - in which it can restrict speech, thousands of bureaucrats salivate.
How bad it can get? Churches burn down in Canada while legislators contemplate making it a crime (denialism) to state that the alleged murders that sparked the arsons never happened.
There is no actual evidence that they happened. But people here could lose our right to say there is no evidence. That is why "no law respecting" could be important if we had it.
https://mindmatters.ai/2024/09/canadas-residential-schools-a-saga-of-journalistic-wrongdoing/
Such a well-written article! Thanks, Bill.
Thanks for another informative and thought-provoking article, Bill. You clearly have a very analytical mind. I was impressed with your list of 20 limitations on free speech. It had never occurred to me that there were so many exceptions.
I can think of one more though. You are not allowed to drive around residential neighborhoods at 3:00 am (or any time, for that matter) and shout slogans over a PA system at high volume. That's disturbing the peace.
Also, the wording of the First Amendment has always bothered me a bit. It says, "Congress shall make no law ..." Does that imply that states and localities are free to pass such laws? I recall Ann Coulter claiming many years ago that it does, but the Supreme Court apparently does not agree. It seems to me that they could have worded it a bit more clearly, such as "No law shall be passed ..."--- unless they really intended to let the states pass such laws.