>>89606257>bomb threatnever was free speech
>>89604129>Impersonating someonethis is free speech as long as the impersonation is known and does not act in defamation.
>bomb threatnever was free speech
>>89604648>scam>swattingBoth of those are crimes that are unrelated to speech.
>>89605053>protects you from the GOVERNMENT you retard, not from private persons or companies.Wrong.
It protects you from any action beyond freedom of association. That's it. That's all it does. The way true free speech legally works is that private individuals and companies cannot do an action against you for the things you say, OTHER than non-action, which is freedom of association.
The true intent of the 1st amendment is so that you don't lose your job over what you say.
Of course that doesn't nullify the fact that we live in a corporate dystopian novel, but hey!
You saying a specific word doesn't give someone the right to beat your ass.
>mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words" - Street v. New YorkWhich means that unless your words are very intent driven (as with yelling fire, harassment, bomb threats, defamation) you can receive no punishment or action against you for saying them.
This is what freedom of speech ACTUALLY is.
