[so_real]

I do not think that means what you think it it means.

My point was that citizens draw the line as to which "free" speech is acceptable and which is not. We can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater because we deemed it illegal and wrote laws to prevent it. We can not threaten the president's life because we supported laws to prevent it. There never has been an absolute free-ness of speech in this country. Historically we have placed limits on free speech for good reasons. Whether you agree with it or not in this instance, there is no principle-of-the-thing to prevent We the People from doing so again.

[Modernman]

My point was that citizens draw the line as to which "free" speech is acceptable and which is not.

No, the Constitution draws the line, not a majority vote.

We can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater because we deemed it illegal and wrote laws to prevent it.

Yelling fire can be banned not because the people decided to ban it, but because it does not fall under free speech as protected by the Constitution.

We can not threaten the president's life because we supported laws to prevent it.

Death threats are not Constitutionally protected.

Whether you agree with it or not in this instance, there is no principle-of-the-thing to prevent We the People from doing so again.

Flag-burning is covered by the 1st Amendment. Otherwise, there would be no reason to amend the Constitution in order to ban flag-burning.

[Texas Federalist]

My point was that citizens draw the line as to which "free" speech is acceptable and which is not. We can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater because we deemed it illegal and wrote laws to prevent it. We can not threaten the president's life because we supported laws to prevent it.

We are not able to write laws that violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. Nor should we amend the Constitution to weaken First Amendment protection. Neither of your examples are analogous for the reasons I and other individuals on this thread stated earlier.

[houeto]

We can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater because we deemed it illegal and wrote laws to prevent it. We can not threaten the president's life because we supported laws to prevent it.

So, why not just write laws against it?