But the founding principles have always had restrictions build in. Try for example publically calling for the assassination of the president (or any other person) and see how you fare. Or army members not being allowed to talk about their missions. I don't buy that these are fundamentally different, it is simply drawing the line differently of what is permissable free speech.
The comparison is not applicable. When you join the army, you give up certain rights to join that specific group. To make it even more important, the rules are clear and explicit.
Now compare it to Twitter or Facebook. You don't know what you signing up for. Their TOS effectively say they can ban you for things they deem wrong. It is only recently that we know how they evaluate it ( see CNN discussion of FB speech violence tiers ).
Free speech is just that. It is free speech. There is no TOS. It includes all sorts of nasty bits too, because that is what being human is. Trying to pretend otherwise is, at best, counterproductive.
But here we are. Entire nation scared of reality and in dire need to cover it up with soft language.
<< But the founding principles have always had restrictions build in.
Do they? I am reading the constitution and I don't see those restrictions. You may get a visit from some agencies, but that is to make sure you were not joking.
On the other hand, I do see a mention of when slavery is ok in US and yet people seem surprised when it is pointed out.
I am talking about restrictions to free speech and yes when you join the army your free speech is restricted. Which is a clear example of the government restricting free speech, but presumably that is OK?
The argument is a good one, but I think it is missing the nuance of the status of a soldier, who, for a variety of reasons, is not an average citizen ( note, how many restrictions are listed with qualifier 'while in uniform'[1]).
You can say what you want. Just don't make it look like the army is saying this.
It may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. You voluntarily join the army. You join that specific group and accept their 'rules'. It is harder to argue ( not impossible since there are naturalized citizens, who clearly opt in to become citizens ) that citizens by right of birth voluntarily opt into that set of rules. That is the where constitution comes in.
But restrictions like this don't just apply to soldiers, journalists can be prosecuted for revealing classified information, people can be prosecuted for treason because they revealed specific information to foreign agents, people can be sued for defamation. All these are restrictions to free speech.
My argument is every one believes there are limits to free speech they just place the boundaries at different places. And I stand by my position that the soldier example is on a fundamental level a restriction on free speech.
