Constitution doesn't grant free speech (secures it), but phrase specifically connotes opposition to govt abridgment. https://twitter.com/gokitefly/status/708887944975618048 …
-
-
.
@justinamash Yes, that's my point. A private party can violate another's freedom of speech through violence. -
.
@ariarmstrong These are crimes regardless of motive. "Free speech"=>free from gov abridgment. Not independently protected in other context. -
@justinamash@ariarmstrong a private entity cannot abridge your freedom of speech. First Amdt clearly says congress shall pass no law -
@justinamash@ariarmstrong protestors shouting down trump r violating rights of those who own & paid for the event. So they can be removed. -
@dougstafford@justinamash@ariarmstrong I'm legally allowed to shout over you so you can't make your point, but I shouldn't. -
@MellinaHuitema@justinamash@ariarmstrong that's right. But it's not a violation of anyone's rights.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@justinamash@ariarmstrong lk Marshall, look at text + context -> 9th amdmt. 1A does contributorily create speech right against oth citizensThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@justinamash@ariarmstrong Ari is right; that interp is a failing of textualism. 1A textually prevents govt, but contextually idntfis right.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.