So all of my representatives all the way up from local to Senate are Democrats. Is it ever appropriate for me to contact someone who isn’t my direct representative to show my displeasure at what they are doing? For example, maybe I don’t like that the Senate isn’t giving a hearing to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, but…

So there are people on the Trump campaign who honestly believe that a man who cannot even be trusted with his own Twitter account should be trusted with foreign policy and the largest military in the world?

A lot of things that are legal are also wrong so I’m not making any moral judgement here. It’s a testament to the power of our freedoms that they extend even to things that are unpopular.

I’m not saying. The 1st Amendment and Supreme Court say. There are certain exemptions (obscenity being the one that would probably rule out the swingers activity having sex the property but not just meeting to talk about their lifestyle). Research it. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from regulating content…

The issue is that the government can’t regulate content. A school or library could say we aren’t going to allow ANY outside groups to use our space. That’s fine. A school could say our policy is that we don’t allow ANYBODY to write chalk messages on the sidewalk outside the main entrance. That’s fine.

Yeah, obviously... that’s the whole point to being content neutral. You don’t think non-Christians are called out for being hateful? Of course they are.

I’m hoping they soon roll out “if this AND this THEN that” as well. You know like how, “if I open the door turn on the lights” is all well and good but “if I open the door and it’s dark outside turn on the lights” would be so much better.

The thing is, I’m not sitting here arguing my opinion. I’m sitting here trying to explain what the actual law and actual Constitutional rights are. You don’t have to agree with me, with the Supreme Court, or with the Constitution of the United States. That’s your prerogative. But you’re still wrong.

Yup. And it’s surprising how many people think their should be... and I get why... they want to live in a world where people aren’t racist or homophobic, but they don’t realize the consequences of living in a world where the government legislates and regulates thoughts or opinions (even if those thoughts and opinions…

Yeah... that might be true if it were just some law... but it’s the US Constitution. The US Constitution doesn’t allow for local jurisdiction discretion lmao.

What you aren’t seeing is that prohibiting religion is as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as forcing a religion. The government simply cannot regulate the content of speech. Please Google it. There’s plenty of resources explaining why and how the government can’t deny their faculties to religious groups.

I hope to God you are trolling me. Like are you for real?

Well, I can tell you have strong opinions on the subject. They are incorrect opinions, but they are yours to have. It’s very clear that you spent more time writing the above based on what YOU think rather than on what the laws ACTUALLY say. The fact that you can’t see the difference between speech that happens as part…

Make sure you get a permit.

Thankfully, we have protections for speech that you specifically disagree with. Which is, of course, the entire point.

I’ve scrolled past this article headline like 4 times already and each time I misread it as “math bat” for some reason and conjure up some nocturnal flying rodent who helps me with my arithmetic.

I’ve scrolled past this article headline like 4 times already and each time I misread it as “math bat” for some…

Just because you’re angry about it doesn’t mean you’re any less wrong. People like you, who only believe that our freedoms of speech should be limited to speech that we agree with are the reason we have Constitutional protections like the 1st Amendment in the first place.

Speech that incites violence is not protected by the 1st Amendment. So of course. That’s not just the case for groups using elementary schools... that’s just the standard for anything in this country. But even so, the threshold for actually inciting violence is not easily met. For example, in RAV vs. St. Paul the…

The point of the 1st Amendment isn’t to protect speech you agree with, but rather to protect speech that you don’t agree with, or even find ridiculous.

Disagree. Unless you’re talking about narrowly tailored exemptions to free speech (fighting words, harassment, inciting violence, etc.) you cannot regulate the content of speech. If you are ever in a position where you are saying “your group can’t meet here if they are going to talk about x” then, whatever x is... the…