zlacker

>>smnrg+(OP)
This is free speech. It's not open for discussion.

Our right to free speech is not granted by anyone's consent or by government decree. It preexists the state and cannot be taken away.

We hold this truth to be self-evident. We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

If any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

>>bofade+j2
Of course it's open for discussion. Free speech is not limitless.

You can wax poetically all you want about endowment by the creator, but try saying racial slurs on daytime TV and see how long that lasts.

Advertisement is just another form of speech that can be limited.

>>kcatsk+c4
"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."

What part of that are you confused by? You are making a brash claim that the writ of the state includes the ability to censor speech.

Your right to free speech is not granted by anyone. It's your natural right. It's not possible to separate this right from a human with a law.

>>bofade+W4
>It's your natural right. It's not possible to separate this right from a human with a law.

I get the impression that this "natural right" term is intended to preclude inquiry and shut down discussion.

>>holler+Lv2
Right. Just as it's not possible to discuss reinstitution of slavery. It's not open for dicussion.

>>bofade+Yv2
What do you have to say to the 40-year-old man who says he has a natural right to have sex with 10-year-olds and for the state to punish him for it is just as wrong as state support for slavery was?

It seems that the only effect this "natural right" term has on sufficiently curious interlocutors (who will not fall for your rhetorical trick) is to signal that you are more stubborn than people who do not use the term.