In article , Gunner says...

Every freedom has its responsibilities. You are more than free to
shout fire. However if a riot ensues, and people are hurt, you will
not be charged with screaming fire, but for creating a riot,
disturbing the peace, etc. You will not be charged with a speech
crime.

But those responsibilities are determined ultimately
by the courts. If one publishes defamatory information
about an individual, the charge is indeed a 'speech
crime.' Then the person can sue, and the courts will
decide if the speech was actionable or not.

Here is a question of one person's rights being
ballanced against another persons speech rights. If,
for example, the person being defamed is a public
person or better yet a politician, then it's almost
impossible to prove libel. Likewise if the information
published is *true* then that makes almost it impossible
to show libel. But this is one example of time
place and manner restrictions. If one were to publish
something that one *knows* is false about some average
shmoe, then the courts are more likely to say, that
speech should be restricted, the publisher is guilty
of libel.

The recent case where some activist was arrested and convicted of
posting bomb making information on his web site is of great concern
for many people. That is pure censorship, and a limitation on free
speech.

So this will go to the courts, right? The question is,
does the government's need to keep information secret outweigh
the bad effects of *prior* *restraint*. That is, the
banning of a publication before it even happens, because the
ideas in it are so dangerous. This is typically not how
the courts have ruled in the past. Typically they have
made the distinction between the information about some
item or device that is dangerous, and the actual *use* of
that thing to cause harm. So in the past, prior restraint
was a no-no.

In the present environment however, they might well
padlock the progressive, jail the editors, and create
an fbi file on anyone who has a subscription.

I guess my point here is, if the courts have to get this
deep into the application of something as straightforward
as the first amendment, they're going certainly not going
to look at the second and say, 'whatever you want, help
yourself.'

One of the things that *does* trouble me is how speech
cases seem to rapidly resolve based on these issues, but
firearm cases seem to all hinge on state laws, because
that's mostly how ownership is regulated. So the state
courts can adjudicate based on their own laws and it
pretty much stops there.

If I were you, I would not so much be concerned about the
fact that firearms *are* regulated, but rather the manner
in which the state/federal balance is done. If there's
an amendment about it, why isn't there more federal law
concerning firearm ownership, that effectively trumps
state law?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================