You're missing the other part: "abridging the freedom of speech." Why use a noun phrase here? To draw in existing concepts of what the "freedom of speech" means.
Note that your interpretation cuts two ways. If the framers were not referring to some pre existing legal concept, and instead just meant literal speech, then a lot of the decisions expanding that concept are invalid too. Publishing a book, for example, has been interpreted as part of the "freedom of speech." But that's a legal fiction--publishing is an action, not speech. So is protesting, or uploading things to the Internet.
I agree with your assertion that many things given "speech" protections aren't, like campaign spending, etc. I don't believe protesting to be, though, because it's a medium through which actual speech is communicated. So too is any published forum where actual words are used, like say books or the internet.
Campaign finance, however, is not. I fully support someone's right to speak about who they support and why, in a medium where that speech is communicated as actual language. That is the line, as far as I'm concerned.
Protest, books, the internet - they're all transfer mediums FOR speech. I don't see much difference between limiting publishing and limiting speaking out loud, which are both word-transfer-mechanisms.
I was going to respond to this, but then I realized I'm not sure how your post relates to the parent. Plus I'm not sure about the last part, are you really saying that print as free speech is a legal fiction?
He's saying that the literal text of the first amendment doesn't allow for the interpretative process of figuring out whether dangerous speech is protected. I'm saying that 1) the way it's written clearly allows for interpretation; and 2) if it didn't that would cut out a lot of protections where the court has interpreted "speech" to be broader than its literal meaning.
Speech as encompassing a range of non-speech activities is indeed the result of legal interpretation. If you're a researcher in computer speech recognition, your job has nothing to do with print, right? The concept of "the freedom of speech" encompassing a wide range of expressive conduct is the result of a legal process, one that started before the Constitution was written. When the framers wrote the text against that background, they meant to incorporate the existing understanding of the limits of that freedom. And that concept has always allowed for limitations on harmful expression.
Comments
You're missing the other part: "abridging the freedom of speech." Why use a noun phrase here? To draw in existing concepts of what the "freedom of speech" means.
Note that your interpretation cuts two ways. If the framers were not referring to some pre existing legal concept, and instead just meant literal speech, then a lot of the decisions expanding that concept are invalid too. Publishing a book, for example, has been interpreted as part of the "freedom of speech." But that's a legal fiction--publishing is an action, not speech. So is protesting, or uploading things to the Internet.
I agree with your assertion that many things given "speech" protections aren't, like campaign spending, etc. I don't believe protesting to be, though, because it's a medium through which actual speech is communicated. So too is any published forum where actual words are used, like say books or the internet.
Campaign finance, however, is not. I fully support someone's right to speak about who they support and why, in a medium where that speech is communicated as actual language. That is the line, as far as I'm concerned.
Protest, books, the internet - they're all transfer mediums FOR speech. I don't see much difference between limiting publishing and limiting speaking out loud, which are both word-transfer-mechanisms.
I was going to respond to this, but then I realized I'm not sure how your post relates to the parent. Plus I'm not sure about the last part, are you really saying that print as free speech is a legal fiction?
He's saying that the literal text of the first amendment doesn't allow for the interpretative process of figuring out whether dangerous speech is protected. I'm saying that 1) the way it's written clearly allows for interpretation; and 2) if it didn't that would cut out a lot of protections where the court has interpreted "speech" to be broader than its literal meaning.
Speech as encompassing a range of non-speech activities is indeed the result of legal interpretation. If you're a researcher in computer speech recognition, your job has nothing to do with print, right? The concept of "the freedom of speech" encompassing a wide range of expressive conduct is the result of a legal process, one that started before the Constitution was written. When the framers wrote the text against that background, they meant to incorporate the existing understanding of the limits of that freedom. And that concept has always allowed for limitations on harmful expression.