Then you arent paying attention.
No. It isn't An inhernet part of a right is that when you exercise a right, you arent harming or endangering anyone else -- and so, "speech" that harms/endangers someone else isnt "free speech" and thus not protected.
So by definition, you are saying that any expression can't harm someone else???
Well that is an exception to a literal right of "freedom of speech". If we both agree that there is exceptions to rights then thats great. I can settle with that.
I think the idea of rights is much more interesting then just how it relates to the second or first Amendment anyway...
Rights, by their nature, do not conflict, as they end at the point where they cause harm to someone else.
I think that is too simplistic. Unfortuantly, you are talking about a senario when one right is FIRST considered to be a true right and then asking yourself when it violates someone else's other rights. That doesn't have to do with if the second right has been violated.
What you are saying doesn't fullfill a criteria of when the MOST rights of people are being upheld. I believe that should be strived for, and the way to do that is to take rights on their overall themes, instead of worrying about exceptions TOO much.
Both of these things violate the constitution, for the reasons already given (and never addressed).
I disagree, because the Constitution is based on what the founding father's intended or else all of the Rights in the Constitution would contridict.
Once again... when someone screams "fire" in a crowded building there is two rights involved.
1. Right for someone to lie that there is a fire.
2. Right for someone's own life.
How isn't lying that there is a fire not free speech? Lying is legal. Free speech involves the expression of a certain view that someone has, and even if someone held out a sign saying "fire" in a crowded building that would also be illegal.
and the first amendment says there can be no laws "abridging the freedom of speech" it does not say that "free speech" must be protected, but that there is "freedom of speech."
This means that the freedom is in how any sort of speech can be used, when "free speech" is not a criteria of what speech is protected.
Unfortuantly, if you outlaw either someone expressing that there is a fire or you allow someone to die in a panic then one of the rights are being violated.
Therefore, rights sometimes contridict each other. Therefore, we must pick which combination is the best for everyone based on the intent of the rights (and not the literal translation of the rights of life and expression).
Since the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow people to have guns, a 1 day waiting period on that does not violate the right.
This has been going on long enough, I am trying to make this as direct and even as consice as I can though.