so if it is made criminal to publish critical remarks about the presidential administration, you don’t believe that should be protected?
that doesn’t seem like a fair place to draw the line.
isn’t the goal of the amendment to make sure that speech is not made criminal?
Any legislation is subject to a constitutional challenge in the courts.
Again, I’m talking about laws imposing reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Moreover, laws having an impact on speech rights should be narrowly tailored to minimize speech restriction. And should need to show a significant state interest warranting any restriction.
So, for example, you can picket on public sidewalks, but you cannot block traffic. Moreover, you have far greater rights to speech on public property than private. (Note: in some cases of religious expression - creches on public property for ex. - this may seem to run the other way.)
So, the protection of generally being critical of the administration ought to be a no-brainer. However, explicitly discussing violence against specific officials and other criminal activity, far less so. We have a significant public interest in having our elected officials not being physically harmed. Going into the arena, tho, they should know they have to have a sufficiently thick skin to tolerate criticism. Moreover, there is a significant public interest (and long history of protection) of airing diverse and dissenting views.
There is a difference in law between that which merely “offends” and that which it is reasonable to assume might genuinely affect the subject’s mental well-being, ie. threats or hate speech, or may be the primary cause of danger or criminal activity, ie. incitement to riot (cf. “fire”), or may be financially injurious to another ie. slander.
In each case a strong case can be made that such speech impugns the freedom of others, and cannot therefore said to be “free” in the spirit of the citation.
I hope you’ll forgive me if I treat your question above as though it had been specifically directed at Mr. Evil. I’m not interested in defending his points; the purpose of my post was to try to help you understand what it was. Admittedly, my interpretation was speculative, but I feel that it was a plausible statement of his actual meaning.
That said, if one defines “ban” to mean 100% banned, insisting on 100% as the standard for effectivity would seem to be consistent.
You’ll have to take it up with Mr. Evil whether he defines “ban” that way.
Are you sure?
I’m not sure if I’m convinced by it, but I think there’s a plausible argument to be made that it represents a threat. I’m not sure where to draw the line: I think a sign that says “Kill all something people” is out, but I don’t know how widely interpreted as that a symbol has to be before it becomes wrong.
The difference between driving along without paying much attention, and driving along without paying much attention and hitting someone. Shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre might just be ignored by everyone, in which case who cares?
(yeah, I know the analogy doesn’t quite work because you can get done for dangerous driving without actually causing an accident, but never mind)
If it’s on the borderline, that’s why you have juries.
Orders and threatening pronouncements are out. That is, you cannot tell a receptive audience to kill, though one could generally call out for the death of all Dopers (All Dopers must die) as a means of expressing some sentiment. Saying, “I will kill all Dopers” is more problematic, and must be weighed based on the context and likelihood of being fulfilled, but not so with “All Dopers will die,” which is a highly accurate prediction. 
Orders? So I can’t put up a sign saying “Please don’t allow your dog to crap on my lawn,” or “The scout meeting’s in the church hall today; go there”?
Good point about obviously unserious threats, of course.
Read things in context, bitte! I ought to have been clearer, but the “That is, you cannot tell a receptive audience to kill…” should have done the trick.
Bah . . . Death will die before I do . . .
for anyone interested here is the most recent cross-burning decision given by SCOTUS. basically it says that virginia’s law that says cross-burning with intent to intimidate is legal, but that the provision that says cross-burning alone constitutes evidence of intent to intimidate is not legal. interestingly, as justice thomas dissents, i was led to believe that he disagreed with the ruling that cross-burning should be illegal. in fact he disagreed with the ruling that cross-burning alone doesn’t constitute intent to intimidate. i don’t know why the national media said he dissented without saying that he thought the court was too soft. strange…well, that’s what i got from reading it.
anyway, it seems that the court generally believes that speech that involves threats or “intent to intimidate” is out because it is disruptive to the lives of those against whom the threat is directed, causing them to believe that their right of personal safety is in doubt.