@Baldimo,
You weren't paying attention, you actually signed a piece of paper that stated you soecifically gave up your Bill of Rights and accepted you're coming under the authority of the UCMJ.
Still looking for the form online, but even so you do notice in your oath: "I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. "
Not the Constitution but the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Surely you don't confuse the UCMJ with the Constitution, do you?
Quote:
Do you want to talk about bullshit? The only type of speech that is restricted is that which incites violence. Talking **** about a group of people you don't like as long as you don't advocate violence, like Anfifa does, is illegal speech. I can provide proof of what I'm saying can you?
Double BULLSHIT!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
United States
Constitutional framework
The protection of civil rights, including freedom of speech, was not written into the original 1789 Constitution of the United States but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, clarifies that this prohibition applies to laws of the states as well.
Supreme Court case law
See also: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Starting in the 1940s U.S states began passing hate speech laws. In Beauharnais v. Illinois the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's hate speech laws. Illinois's laws punished expression that was offensive to racial ethnic and religious groups. After Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court developed a free speech jurisprudence that loosened most aspects of the free speech doctrine.[87] In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[88]
Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[89]
or
In United States labor law, a hostile work environment exists when one's behavior within a workplace creates an environment that is difficult or uncomfortable for another person to work in due to discrimination. Common complaints in sexual harassment lawsuits include fondling, suggestive remarks, sexually-suggestive photos displayed in the workplace, use of sexual language, or off-color jokes.[1] Small issues, annoyances, and isolated incidents typically are not considered to be illegal. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to a reasonable person. An employer can be held liable for failing to prevent these workplace conditions, unless it can prove that it attempted to prevent the harassment and that the employee failed to take advantage of existing harassment counter-measures or tools provided by the employer.[2]
A hostile work environment may also be created when management acts in a manner designed to make an employee quit in retaliation for some action. For example, if an employee reported safety violations at work, was injured, attempted to join a union, or reported regulatory violations by management, and management's response was to harass and pressure the employee to quit. Employers have tried to force employees to quit by imposing unwarranted discipline, reducing hours, cutting wages, or transferring the complaining employee to a distant work location.
The United States Supreme Court stated in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.[3] that Title VII is "not a general civility code." Thus, federal law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. Rather, the conduct must be so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the individual's employment. The conditions of employment are altered only if the harassment culminates in a tangible employment action or is sufficiently severe or pervasive.
Quote:
The SCOTUS disagrees with you, they see a major difference between actions and words. Hate speech is protected speech, hate crimes are not protected because they constitute action and not speech.
Bullshit. See above. Specific threats of violence is not the only test of unprotectd speech - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't protected, fighting words aren't protected, and speech isn't all that's considered free speech. Corporate contributions are a form of free speech.
What you don't know about free speech literally fills a book.
Want links?
https://able2know.org/topic/404870-3
