A message

Also, the limitation of speech would depend on the situation. It could be argued that under Schneck V. United States, where the Supreme court decided that under clear national emergencies, like WW1, the right of free speech could be limited if it was speech that could inhibit government action to counter said emergency, Chaplin was inhibiting government action against the perceived communist 'threat'. (Before you spam your keyboards, let me clarify that the ruling in Schneck v. United States was modified in the 1960's, giving more defined criteria for national emergencies, and clarifying that speech could only be limited if and only if the speech was a clear call for 'imminent lawless action')

what about people being denied their constitutional rights?
they are pretty inportant arent they?

Where are they being denied their rights? Don't just say it, show me.

show you what?

How about:

If they actually were denied there rights there hasnt been a case saying so, show us the evidence.

just look at the occupy movement
people are being denied freedom of speech and the right to protest the government wich i think is 2 of the most fundemental rights in any democracy.

The only time the areas were cleared was when the law was broken, the police did there job the right to free speech was protected.

They are still occupying without being imprisoned or some other way a government would attempt to stop freedom of speech.

A heart warming speech, to bad that people doesn't actually follow it's ideals.
What he describes is a utopia we can never reach I guess we can always dream.

My day has just been made.

Don't be so impressed. The only reason he's able to use this case is because we covered it in our AP Government and Politics class last week. Otherwise, this brilliant insight in to American court cases would not exist.

Gee thanks Coex, you just had to tell everyone that I'm not as informed as I pretend to be...

This should be your avatar Coex.

Guys this isn't a thread about how evil the Americunts are, but about the speech as a message. If you do want to talk about the evilnes of the US, I will start another thread.

What's there to say? It is a very good speach with a good message(although very idealistic). He is describing a utopia which we have not reached yet and will not reach for a very long time(if ever).

Then don't say anything.

Oh, and the reason why creating an utopia is so incrediably hard is because the people say it's nearly imossible and don't do anything.

No double posting. No the reason utpoia is immposible to reach is because we are human, we are imperfect, which means we can not create a "perfect" society(that in it's self is immposible because people have different idea's on what perfect is).