The Biggest Temper Tantrum In U.S. History Has Begun

Radical Left pushes INSURRECTION: Calls to demolish U.S. Supreme Court after landmark pro-2A decision affirming individual right to self-defense

High court will consider whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry nationwide

The Supreme Court will hear 2½ hours of argument on April 28 on same-sex marriage cases originating from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee. Photo: Getty Images

Right-to-die Supreme Court judgement due

Paul Lamb won an earlier legal battle to join Tony Nicklinson’s court challenge

Man’s sex with 11-year-old not abusive, Italian court rules

The ruling was made at Italy’s Supreme Court Photo: GETTY IMAGES

Supreme court overturns 60-year-old’s conviction for sexual acts with minor, saying verdict did not take into account ‘amorous relationship’

Utah to Appeal Gay Marriage Ruling to US Supreme Court

Ruth Hackford-Peer (L) and Kim Hackford-Peer sign their marriage certificate after getting married as Reverend Curtis Price (C) watches at the Salt Lake County office building in Salt Lake City, Utah, December 20, 2013. A federal judge struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional on Friday, handing a major victory to gay rights activists in a conservative state where the Mormon church wields considerable influence. (Photo: Reuters/Jim Urquhart)

as Final Holdout Counties Distribute Licenses

Canada’s Supreme Court strikes down anti-prostitution laws

Canada’s highest court struck down the country’s anti-prostitution laws Friday, finding they violated sex workers’ right to life, liberty, and security. Here, a woman holds a sign in a rally to support sex workers in Toronton on Friday.     Mark Blinch/The Canadian Press via AP

The unanimous decision — a victory for sex workers who had argued that some measures made their profession more dangerous — found that bans on brothels and street solicitations were unconstitutional. Canada’s Parliament has one year to respond before the decision takes effect.

New Mexico Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

US Senate Says Right to Keep & Bear Arms is Debatable

Which Shall It Be, Freedom of Speech or Not?

photo credit: http://www.veteranstoday.com

SOURCE

Michael S. Rozeff
lewrockwell.com
August 10, 2013

Can a man speak freely in America without any fear of punishment or can he not? He cannot. Has the U.S. government concocted free speech “crimes” in order to suppress free speech? It has. Is the U.S. government investigating free speech activities with the notion that they may be terroristic? It is.

Being pro-liberty, I am pro-free speech. I think that liberty and being able to speak freely are part of what being a human being means. In addition, I think that free speech enhances human life. Favoring the human being, human life and its development, I favor free speech. This does not mean that I like or approve of everything that anyone says. I don’t, most assuredly. It doesn’t mean that groups of people may not voluntarily suppress free speech among themselves. Favoring free speech implies that I do not believe in forcibly curtailing speech.

If we wish, we can discuss free speech without reference to the U.S. constitution. The idea of free speech doesn’t depend on a constitution, but because the government is suppressing free speech and claiming that it is doing so legally, I am going to discuss some specific court cases that reference the Constitution.

Being pro-liberty, I am not in favor of a system that centralizes law-making in one man or a few men as the U.S. system under the Constitution does. What if they make bad laws? What if the system provides no effective means to alter those laws? What if the system actively suppresses and undermines the available means to alter those laws? What if great distress has to be endured for many years before laws are altered?

But in this article, I postpone speaking with my Spoonerite anti-Constitution hat on until the end. I mainly wish to explore how it is that the Supreme Court is undermining free speech under the cover of its claim to be the final arbiter of what U.S. law says. However, implicitly I am raising the question of what good a Constitution is under which rights written down in black and white can be effectively destroyed by the Supreme Court.