I do not agree that these decisions are correct.
The first amendment did protect a persons right to say anything but did not protect them from the consequences. Personal freedom is unlimited, right up to the end of another’s nose but not without accountability, which is correct.
Perhaps we agree on this point.
I will not tread into the Depp/Heard saga.
In my studies of the Founding Father’s and using their thoughts on self-preservation through self-protection, as well as letters of Marque i do not agree that the ussc has any right to allow any regulation of the 2A.
The arguments of lawyers doesn’t change truth, they just attempt to justify their perversion of it and its’ application to others. They never submit themselves to their own regulation. That is true evil, under any veil.
If you believe that the ussc hasn’t made errors everytime they have heard anything related to the 2A....
We will have to agree to disagree.
Thank you for the effort in your response.
I do not agree that these decisions are correct.The first amendment did protect a persons right to say anything but did not protect them from the consequences. Personal freedom is unlimited, right up to the end of another’s nose but not without accountability, which is correct.
Perhaps we agree on this point.
You certainly have a right to disagree with court decisions. The government has the authority to enforce them. One ignores them at his or her peril.
For fifty years, I have thought Roe was wrongly decided. It is still the law. Tommorow, or someday soon, it may no longer be the law. Then the states can get back to arguing each other's abortion laws. I never found the federal jurisdiction emanating from a penumbra. Until it is changed, Roe is the law, whether I agree with it or not.
The First Amendment does not protect all speech. There is a fallacy in your logic that a person has a constitutional right to say anything but they are not protected from consequences. This inescapably leads to the conclusion that a person may be prosecuted or held liable for constitutionally protected free speech.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not constitutionally protected free speech. A person may be prosecuted for it.
Burning a flag in protest is considered constitutionally protected freedom of expression. A person cannot be prosecuted for it.
If a person can establish that their speech was constitutionally protected, they cannot be prosecuted for it.
Personal freedom is not unlimited. Can you lawfully drive a car on a public road without a license? Can you practice law, medicine or pharmacy without a license? Can you transport your guns across state lines? In a state that has decriminalized possession and use of marijuana, can you get a marijauna license or permit and still lawfully purchase a gun?