>when faced with a situation where a mob boss says "please go kill that person" or ringleader whips up a mob into a riot. Should a judge just say "well, he was just exercising his First Amendment rights!" and ensure no consequences befall that person?
Isn't that covered by actual murder (or conspiracy to commit murder if it isn't seen through) charges, unrelated to free speech?
>A person enters my home and says things I find offensive. Should the First Amendment prevent me from removing that person from my home for that reason?
Isn't that covered by the right to invite (or throw out) whatever guest you want at your home? You have the same right even if they don't say things you find offensive, heck, even if they just tell you pleasant things...
>I decide to leak trade secrets of my employer for profit. Should the First Amendment protect me from being fired and sued for this?
Isn't that covered by copyright law (or similar)?
The point wasn't "practical limits to free speech" regarding a "mob hit" request or some non-existant and never argued obligation to let people in your house if they speak lest you prevent them from expression (?), but how more abstract (or open to interpretation) restrictions can be used to effectively limit actual free speech.
Not to mention "private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways", like a not so uncommon case of you saying something they don't like on your (unrelated to work) personal social media, in which they can just fire you. Or the social medium itself can censor you.
Making the FA protections kind of moot, in a time when it isn't the government that has to do the censoring anymore, while the public just gathers on 3-4 tech behemoths platforms.
> Isn't that covered by actual murder (or conspiracy to commit murder if it isn't seen through) charges, unrelated to free speech?
> Isn't that covered by the right to invite (or throw out) whatever guest you want at your home?
> Making the FA protections kind of moot, in a time when it isn't the government that has to do the censoring anymore, while the public just gathers on 3-4 tech behemoths platforms.
I don't understand your points. You're both mixing concerns and splitting them, seemingly at random.
The examples you brought up as arguments to why free speech can't be absolute (which I didn't argue for in the first place) are contrived and unrelated to free speech.
They are also already covered by existing laws, such as laws against conspiracy to commit murder, about the right of exclusion, etc. If anything I'm separating concerns, mixed up for no good reason.
As for my statement about FA, it's pointing how its protections are rendered moot, since they don't apply to private businesses and thus don't protect speech (the kind that matters, not mob hits) in places where the public discourse really happens nowadays. So, it's not "sufficient free speech protection" anymore.
I added it to further the discussion, what with FA being the very topic of this subthread, and not some randomly "mixed concern"...
The First Amendment supersedes law by determining whether it can be law at all, so whether it's covered by "law" is actually only half the story.
> The examples you brought up as arguments to why free speech can't be absolute
I started with deliberately stupid examples to make my point: Free Speech was always clearly limited, by necessity.
> it's pointing how its protections are rendered moot
That in itself is debatable. What evidence do you bring that this is somehow worse than it used to be? It used to be the case that, to get _any_ significant speech, you had to get your work published. Now you can just shoot it off on Twitter, Reddit, HN, take your pick.
>I started with deliberately stupid examples to make my point: Free Speech was always clearly limited, by necessity.
Which is neither here, nor there. Conspiracy to commit murder, as per the "mob boss gives an order example" would always be illegal regarless of our "free speech" stance, and the First Amendment didn't come into play determining whether that "[could] be law at all".
It was rather the other way around: the First Amendment was drafted with the certainty that such a thing isn't about free speech and will always be illegal.
> It was rather the other way around: the First Amendment was drafted with the certainty that such a thing isn't about free speech and will always be illegal.
This isn’t really backing up your point that the First Amendment isn’t sufficiently protecting free speech.
Isn't that covered by actual murder (or conspiracy to commit murder if it isn't seen through) charges, unrelated to free speech?
>A person enters my home and says things I find offensive. Should the First Amendment prevent me from removing that person from my home for that reason?
Isn't that covered by the right to invite (or throw out) whatever guest you want at your home? You have the same right even if they don't say things you find offensive, heck, even if they just tell you pleasant things...
>I decide to leak trade secrets of my employer for profit. Should the First Amendment protect me from being fired and sued for this?
Isn't that covered by copyright law (or similar)?
The point wasn't "practical limits to free speech" regarding a "mob hit" request or some non-existant and never argued obligation to let people in your house if they speak lest you prevent them from expression (?), but how more abstract (or open to interpretation) restrictions can be used to effectively limit actual free speech.
Not to mention "private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways", like a not so uncommon case of you saying something they don't like on your (unrelated to work) personal social media, in which they can just fire you. Or the social medium itself can censor you.
Making the FA protections kind of moot, in a time when it isn't the government that has to do the censoring anymore, while the public just gathers on 3-4 tech behemoths platforms.