Are ambiguous statements covered by the 1st Amendment?

Comment #6

Stack47 — Wed, 06 Dec 2023 02:03:37 GMT

"The wall is going to cost $10 billion a year. That's what it's going to cost. It's going to be a powerful wall. It's going to cost $10 billion.” A weird and redundant way to explain the estimated cost and probably why he wasn't taken serious. His "Mexico will pay for the wall" plan made it sound even dumber. He mentioned something about the trade deficit (exports plus or minus imports) which was $47 billion in 2016 and $42 billion today. Either way, the $10 billion cost would b... [ More ]

Comment #5

Stack47 — Tue, 05 Dec 2023 04:17:54 GMT

Sure doesn't sound like someone with rock solid Christian values.

Comment #4

Pick3master3838 — Mon, 04 Dec 2023 13:41:10 GMT

The Bible is garbage. Exodus 21....the fake God doesn't like mixed fabrics and eating shellfish, but never once said slavery is bad. FU*K THE FAKE GOD THAT DOESNT EXIST!!!!!

Comment #3

Stack47 — Mon, 04 Dec 2023 04:24:11 GMT

Edited to correct and add "obvious contradictions Exodus chapter 21 has with the 13th Amendment".

Comment #2

Stack47 — Mon, 04 Dec 2023 04:20:00 GMT

One of the Republican presidential candidates is calling for a news network to be punished and denied their Right under the 1st Amendment by calling what they are reporting "illegal political activity". Haven't really looked at some of the stuff their members are demanding and comparing them to Rights covered in the Constitution, but there are many. Tommy Tuberville doesn't see the irony in his reasoning and why his one man filibuster is because of the same thing he is against.... [ More ]

Comment #1

noise-gate — Sat, 02 Dec 2023 20:40:37 GMT

* Tuberville injecting his personal opinion into refusing to go along with the majority in nominating people to positions in the armed forces is reckless behavior. What’s next- asking folks to be” Christian “ in order to serve the country? If you Hindu or Buddhist, you need not apply? It’s always some fool from a State with 300 people that wants to tell the entire country how it should function.

Original Blog Entry: Are ambiguous statements covered by the 1st Amendment?

Stack47 — Sat, 02 Dec 2023 10:30:44 GMT

There are a few narrow categories of speech not protected including incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats . However with the exception of child pornography, the others could be protected speech if the statements are ambiguous. Two current examples are things being said about Jack Smith and Tommy Tuberville.

Someone on X asked if Tuberville should be removed from his Senate committee and former CIA Director Michael Hayden replied with How about the human race? Senator Tuberville accused Hayden of calling for his assassination and made a report to the Capital Police. During a Newsmax interview, Republican Congressman Clay Higgins said Jack Smith's days are numbered.

The Higgins example can and probably will be considered ambiguous because it could mean several other things. Hayden's remark could be borderline, but he did ask a question and later posted,

I was surprised to wake up this morning and discover that many MAGAnuts had lost their minds over my suggestion that Coach Tuberville not be considered a member of the human race. I stand by that view. I m wishing you all a nice day even the intransigent Tommy Tuberville.

Had a laugh when I read under freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment in the Encyclopedia Britannica , incitement was defined as such speech as to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building . Wonder why they used that as an example of inciting?... [ More ]