Doesn't help when it's not a full house either.Blue collar, kids, elderly, and jobs. No middle class taxes.
Biden’s pacing isn’t great and his speech lacks some of those applause moments.
Doesn't help when it's not a full house either.
Holy crap. Biden is putting Ted Cruz to sleep...
Agreed. And it was a sincere speech as well. It didn't feel fake and forced.I really appreciated the lack of shoutouts to random people in the gallery. The length was really good.
What the hell is Tim Scott talking about?
He's right. Americans need to get this through their heads. They're called Amendments for a reason. We've repealed Constitutional Amendments before, there's no reason we can't repeal, revise or reinterpret them now.
Well if you consider reality to be a limitation, I’d say that’s a pretty good reason.
But I don’t think he was referring to new amendments, I think he was referring to legal limits. The rights contained in the bill of rights aren’t absolute, he’s right about that. The first amendment right has limits. The second amendment right has limits and so on. I think he’s referring to action by Congress (for example the assault weapons ban was never invalidated, it just expired).
But the fire in a crowded theater thing is just silly at this point - that’s the bad legal take.
It's a colloquialism that people recognize, whether it's accurate or not. The point being that your free speech doesn't extend to putting other people in danger.
I suppose but the devil is in the details - the fire example suggests that the standard reflects a far more generalized basis of danger than what the law actually does provide. It comes from a (overturned) case decided in a rather dark time for the First Amendment and the because the “colloquialism” implies a broader, more generalized basis to restrict speech than the true contours of the First Amendment, it has a history of being used in rhetoric that advocates suppression of speech that is actually entirely legal.
Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are obvious.
I would use this quote to refute what you're saying:
The actual scope of the restriction isn't what registers with the average person. What registers is that reckless speech can (or at least should; in practice it's very difficult to prosecute) have consequences.