First Amendment - Montana

[Mistame]

The first amendment is inherently limited. It's about protecting your speech against government. It's not about enshrining your unlimited right to be a fucktard in any circumstance.

The First Amendment is about protecting one's right to speak freely from being unjustly infringed upon by government (not just to "protect you from speaking out against the government"). The "limitations" are more about the resulting consequences of that speech. For example, in the case of slander, speech is used with the intent of causing harm to one's reputation or livelihood. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater because it would cause panic and possible cause physical harm to others. Being insulted is localized to an emotion response, so no, you do not technically have the right to not be insulted or offended.

- - - Updated - - -

Follow the quotes from the start. Don't just make a comment on my last post.

Actually, I did. But my comment is directed at your last comment. There is no relevant correlation to any other post.

[Orange Joe]

Actually, I did. But my comment is directed at your last comment. There is no relevant correlation to any other post.

My comment wasn't a stand alone comment. It was part of a conversation.

[Manhands]

I don't like first amendment limitations. How are you going to determine what crosses the line? Case by case?

Yeah...we'd need some sort of dedicated, legally-knowledgeable group to consider these case-by-case. Sounds tough to arrange.

[Xeones]

Looks like the actual charge was disorderly conduct... I don't think this will infringe on general first amendment rights as it appears the claim was this guy was attempting to incite a fight.

[Mistame]

My comment wasn't a stand alone comment. It was part of a conversation.

And my comment addressed yours. Hence the quote.

[Orange Joe]

And my comment addressed yours. Hence the quote.

I never said slander is always insulting. So no it doesn't.

[Zhangfei]

Emotional harm? This is comparable to calling a spitball assault and battery. Don't devalue true emotional harm that causes actual cognitive damage just so you can compare it to name-calling.

You don't get to decide what emotional harm is, the victim and the courts do. What can be a playful punch can hit just the right spot and cause injury; who knows what phrases can really distress people?

[Annoying]

Yeah...we'd need some sort of dedicated, legally-knowledgeable group to consider these case-by-case. Sounds tough to arrange.

Now if only they were actually non-partisan and unbiased.