Provocative speech not covered by the First Amendment Buck Breakdown

Author:

Video Creator’s Channel BlazeTV

author link

Recently, Some On The Left Have Started To

argue that provocative speech. In this case images of the Prophet Mammad that provocative speech is not covered by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Now this is flat-out false, but let’s break down their argument a little bit. First of all many claim that speech that provokes a reaction from radicals like the Texas shooters is incitement but these people don’t understand incitement.

  • speech
  • amendment
  • hate
  • provokes
  • provoked

Let Me Give You An Example If A

tells people that be like soccer and that leads be to shoot a in the face that’s not incitement Incitement is when a tells people see is a big cheese eating soccer fan and that causes B tissue see in the face. Essentially it’s go get that guy. Others argue that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment the idea that there is a separate category of speech. Hate speech, of course, has not found anywhere in a plain reading of the Constitution of the First Amendment, but even if it was saying or doing something provocative is not hate speech just because those who are provoked hate what is being said or done a religions prohibition against making images of their holy figures does not have to be respected by anyone other than those who voluntarily choose to do so Remember if provocative speech is not protected by law, then by definition you do not have freedom of speech.

Im Not Saying Freedom Of Speech

is absolute and boundless, but lunatics bent on inflicting mass casualties on civilians. Don’t get a say in where those boundaries are period.

  • provocative speech covered amendment constitution
  • hate speech just
  • provocative speech protected law
  • hate speech just provoked hate
  • amendment saying doing provocative hate

Summary

Some on the LEft have started to argue that provocative speech is not covered by the First Amendment of the Constitution . This is flat-out false, but by definition you do not have freedom of speech . A religions prohibition against making images of their holy figures does not have to be respected by anyone other than those who voluntarily choose to do so . Remember if provocative speech isn’t protected by law, then by definition, you don’t have the right to free speech period. Don’t get a say in where those boundaries are period. Remember if free speech is absolute and boundless, but lunatics bent on inflicting mass casualties on civilians. They don’t get to say in which those who are provoked hate what is being said or done, they don’t deserve to be allowed to say or do so. Remember that free speech doesn’t have a say on where those who choose to choose to say and where it is protected by the boundaries are allowed to choose. Don’t get to decide ….. Click here to read more and watch the full video