Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "The Truth About Free Speech - Zuby u0026 Elliott Hulse" video.

The problem with censoring speech is not those who decide what is and is not acceptable speech, it is those who decide WHO gets to decide what is acceptable speech. There is no "fixing" 1a... it is flawless.
7
@kenyandrama ...Yes and it is spelled out within 1a.
1
@panzer00 ... Incitement of violence, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre while knowing that there is NO emergency that requires evacuation of said building. . There are a number of more nuanced ones, but those are the primary ones of which we should all be concerned. . If you care to discuss it further, I am always happy to engage in a good faith conversation about pretty much anything.
1
@panzer00 ... I never said that an accurate interpretation of 1a, means that all those charged with violation of it were correctly adjudicated. There is ZERO question, that the state looks right past major 1a violations (see the 100+ pro-Hamas "protests" in the last couple weeks). We saw Riley Gaines needed to be barricaded within a room to be protected form a literal mob who were in 100% violation of a "peaceful protest". We saw a number of Jewish students barricaded within a college library, as a mob of pro-Hamas "peaceful protesters" were pounding on the door, in effort to gain access to them. . The problem we have found in the last 10 years or so, is the free speech is not held to the same standard for all. Saying a "man cannot be a woman and a woman cannot be a man" was LITERALLY deemed hate speech on many platforms, and I am hesitant to even use it in this thread!). While we have COUNTLESS corporations who are openly declaring that whites need to be quiet when blacks are speaking. . The Constitution is currently rolled up and sitting along side the toilet in the Oval Office private bathroom. So, there are violations of it coming from many sides, but were 1a to be modified in ANY way... America would be 1000% doomed!
1
@panzer00 ... You got me. It is not spelled out within the Constitution, but it is indeed a violation of law to incite violence and yell fire in that crowded theatre scenario i mentioned. . All this is to say, you know what I mean. Let me ask you this, what do you think would be the result if the feds secured the necessary support to open up 1a and make ANY changes? I would absolutely argue that both the left and right would seek to "spell out" specific criteria and make them violations of it. The right would go after prayer in school and the left would go after "hate speech". . While both are fraught with possibly very grave consequences, the prayer thing, though I am not in the slightest way convinced it would not lead to MASSIVE disruption, it could probably be defined. It would take a hell of a lot of words, but the societal implications cannot be over looked. . The issue of hate speech would be an unmitigated disaster in every possible way, as it would simply not be conceivable to not write a "blanket" to enable local judges to make their own personal distinction between "free speech" and "hate speech". . My original comment shows just how deep a catastrophic disaster it would be.
1