Freedom of Speech

“includes actual outreach to the Black community in ways never attempted by a Republican President.”

That shows how little you know about US history. Read about Eisenhower and the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

n0m, more ignorance. Your claim about displaying a confederate flag was that “There are two instances that it could be illegal. 1) To incite hate. 2) Anywhere that it is beholden to The Civil Rights Act. [Such as the workplace.]”. This is unambiguously wrong. Even if the “fighting words” doctrine were still law (and it probably is not) that would not justify either of your claims.

Inciting hate is not fighting words. Fighting words means one thing and one thing only: words directed to a particular person, said directly to his face, that are of such a nature that it would be completely natural for him to lose control of himself and punch you, so that in fact he didn’t consciously choose to punch you, you made him do it. In such a case the Court of 1942 erroneously believed that states could ban you from provoking him by saying such things to him. Speech not directed at an individual was NEVER included in this doctrine.

In any case it is very doubtful whether the doctrine itself is still good law. Chaplinsky has not yet been explicitly overruled, but only because nobody has tested it in decades; if it ever came up again it’s very likely that it would be overruled.

Your next claim refutes itself: For you BLM can be based on a lie. For people who live in it, it would be lying to see from without, all that is experienced in the first hand. A lie is a lie is a lie. It can’t be a lie for one person and not for another. And the FACT is that BLM’s founding claim is a lie. It is a FACT, which you cannot deny without being a damned liar yourself, that Michael Browne, rather than being shot with his hands up in surrender, was shot while he was charging at Darren Wilson. It is also an undeniable fact that BLM’s other founding martyr, Trayvon Martin, was killed while he was actively trying his best to murder George Zimmerman. There has never been a clearer case of self defense in human history. It is also a fact that there is no pattern of police murdering black people; on the contrary, police kill black criminals LESS often than they kill white criminals. Every single claim BLM exists to make is a lie. And if you defend those claims then you are a liar.

No, charliehall, wartine does not suspend the first amendment. There is no exception in it for war. Schenck has been completely repudiated and is not good law, which is why those who quote Holmes’s line about falsely shouting fire in a theater make such fools of themselves.

(i accidentally hit submit) And how about libel? and even telling China American secrets (also known as spying)?

Dear Milhouse,
Thank you for clarifying just how specifically displaying a flag would have to be done, to violate the law. Go look back at the OP and tell me if it makes sense that he meant something like that. Personally, I do not mind the Confederate flag. I do not mind my neighbor’s swastika, either.

Dear Milhouse,
I do not walk around with a mental list of Black people who were shot by Police. I do walk around a lot. And I see the way this Great Country interacts. You seem to have this long list of Blacks, that in your mind were in the midst of attacking when they were shot. Just a royal shame that these hapless Police Officers cannot defend themselves in a street fight, without resorting to their guns.

Now, about the lies and lies, and the exalted lies. It surprises me that you would have difficulty with a statement that is basic to logical systems going back hundreds of years. It can be a lie for one person, but not for another. Consider this statement. I am Milhouse.

The above PSA was brought to you free of charge.

I agree 100%

If an officer arrests an individual do not resist arrest.

If you do not do so 99% of the time any violence will be avoided.

If you do resist arrest the likelihood of violence goes up dramatically.
Since the person being arrested is creating a violent situation with an armed individual there is a great likelihood that person will come to physical harm.

This harm could have been avoided simply by not initiating violence.

And more so, when the Officer thinks that he has to use force he must use it right away. Every second he delays, he risks his life, his partners, the detainee, and any bystanders.

As far as the O.P.’s question is concerned, yes a swastika is permitted as is hate speech in general.
See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). BTW, a swastika is a religious symbol in native American and East Indian cultures.

RE, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Village of Skoke v. National Socialist Party of America 69 Ill. 2d 605 (1978) overruled the appellate court stating “The display of the swastika, as offensive to the principles of a free nation as the memories it recalls may be, is symbolic political speech intended to convey to the public the beliefs of those who display it. It does not, in our opinion, fall within the definition of “fighting words,” and that doctrine cannot be used here to overcome the heavy presumption against the constitutional validity of a prior restraint.” in Virginia vs. Black 538 U.S. 343 (2003), SCOTUS ruled that cross burning is permitted unless it is proved that the burners intended to intimidate rather than merely express an opinion.