It kinda does. Otherwise, what you’re advocating is State Censorship.
The 1st Amendment, as written, isn’t just the right to speak but to publish and proselytize and (critically) assemble. You do not merely have the right to speak, but the right to be heard. You cannot be kept out of public spaces because of your personal opinions or expressed beliefs. And you cannot be squelched strictly on the grounds of an ideological dispute.
Obviously, this is the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. When written, the provision didn’t extend to women or children or enslaved people or native people or Jews and Catholics. But over time, populations updated the enforcement and expanded provisions, such that it did include all of the above so long as you weren’t saying anything to mark you out as an Enemy of the State.
shrug We have a set of beliefs and we have a set of actual policies. The gulf between is the contradiction that modern imperialism creates.
The difference is that you have the right get up on the soap box, but you are not guaranteed an audience once you get there. The Freedom of speech only says that you can’t be denied your own life for what you say, not that you are entitled to people to agree with you.
i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/…/3mLydMU.png
I mean people have the right to ignore you. I never claimed that people would face incarcerations if they don’t. Or have you never seen a crazy guy on a street corner ringing a bell and saying “the end is nigh!”?
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 months ago
It kinda does. Otherwise, what you’re advocating is State Censorship.
The 1st Amendment, as written, isn’t just the right to speak but to publish and proselytize and (critically) assemble. You do not merely have the right to speak, but the right to be heard. You cannot be kept out of public spaces because of your personal opinions or expressed beliefs. And you cannot be squelched strictly on the grounds of an ideological dispute.
Obviously, this is the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. When written, the provision didn’t extend to women or children or enslaved people or native people or Jews and Catholics. But over time, populations updated the enforcement and expanded provisions, such that it did include all of the above so long as you weren’t saying anything to mark you out as an Enemy of the State.
shrug We have a set of beliefs and we have a set of actual policies. The gulf between is the contradiction that modern imperialism creates.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The difference is that you have the right get up on the soap box, but you are not guaranteed an audience once you get there. The Freedom of speech only says that you can’t be denied your own life for what you say, not that you are entitled to people to agree with you.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 months ago
If the police can arrest someone for being in the audience, your freedom of speech is functionally repressed
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 3 months ago
i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/…/3mLydMU.png I mean people have the right to ignore you. I never claimed that people would face incarcerations if they don’t. Or have you never seen a crazy guy on a street corner ringing a bell and saying “the end is nigh!”?