It isn't. First, "Free Speech" does not apply to everything. The person alleging to be exercising "Free Speech" has the burden of proving the intent of the action was to make a statement. Not every action is an intent at expression. Second, content-neutral rules are permissible restrictions on things that are "Free Speech." Finally, not all actions/conduct/statements are protected "Free Speech" evoking the Right.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

She is? So, she is "allowed" to post child pornography on her social media account? She is "allowed" to post her employer's trade secrets on her social media account? She is "allowed" to post copyright-protected items on her social media account? She is "allowed" to post defamatory statements on her social media account? Those would all be considered "an expression of free speech?"

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Agreed that there are limits to free speech so of course the examples you mention are illegal.

I've done a little research on this and it looks like some states prohibit flipping off police, but others don't. I would assume same rules apply to the president, but I don't know. I don't think she was cited for any violation and was under the impression that she has the "right" to do what she did. And if she does have this right, isn't it a first amendment right?

Are you claiming she does not have the legal right to flip the bird?[/reply]

As I mentioned in my earlier reply to you - not all actions are even "expressions" and, thus, the burden is on the person taking the action to demonstrate it was an expression. Once that hurdle is overcome, the next step is proving the action is "protected." Not all actions/expressions are protected and, if they are not, they are not guaranteed and/or protected under the Constitution.


She does not have the "Right" to flip off the President. The only "Right" she has in this regard is protection from suppression of this expression by the government. She absolutely, positively, unequivocally has NO "Right" to post a picture of herself flipping off the President on her social media accounts. None.


She absolutely, positively, unequivocally does NOT have the legal Right to flip the bird. None. Period. Hard stop. The only "Right" she has is to freedom from suppression of that action by the government. This is not legal hair-splitting. This is essential to the understanding of the Constitutional Right. Understanding these points makes it very easy to see she was not fired FOR exercising her First Amendment Rights.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

So you're arguing that giving the president the bird wouldn't be considered protected speech?

lol. OK.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Congratulations. Your ignorance has reached new heights. May God have mercy on your soul.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR