Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ken H
"By saying it was not protected by the First Amendment, the USSC defined it as a State issue, of which the Court could take no cognizance. Period."

Period? Making things up again?

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
-- Justice Holmes, Schenk v. United States (1919)

The USSC not only said that it was not protected by the First Amendment, they also said that the words were of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. In other words, it violates other rights.

Given that, what makes you think that the state could extend the right? It would be immediately challenged as a violation of the First Amendment.

"If CC is not protected by the Second, it's not protected whether incorporated or not."

It's not protected by the federal government, no. It may be protected by the state.

"If USSC says CC is protected by the Second and applies it to the States, then all citizens in the US would have a right to CC. That's what really chaps you."

What really chaps me are the people like you who would assume this.

217 posted on 05/03/2005 3:04:00 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
The USSC not only said that it was not protected by the First Amendment, they also said that the words were of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. In other words, it violates other rights.

Note he said "Congress had a right to prevent", nothing about requiring them to prevent [He said Congress because it was a Federal, not a State case]. IOW, it is not protected speech because it violates other rights, and is therefore subject to injunction.

Given that, what makes you think that the state could extend the right? It would be immediately challenged as a violation of the First Amendment.

Nope, it would be challenged as a violation of other rights. It would not be a First Amendment case. That's like saying laws permitting CC are unconstitutional because they violate the Second Amendment.

If CC is not protected by the Second, it's not protected whether incorporated or not.

It's not protected by the federal government, no. It may be protected by the state.

Correct, it may be protected by the State, not the Second Amendment.

223 posted on 05/03/2005 8:27:46 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson