About the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution..It reads:

[Stuart G]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

_________________________________________________________________________________________

I took a class many years ago..yes many, in Constitutional History of U.S.A. and I recall the professor said, that that sentence is the strongest language there is. " .........no law.." means.. NO LAW... NONE, nada, zero, empty, 0.,non, “nyet”, nein, の, 没有 , לא


No law, means ...NO LAW. ,,,The professor said that the writers of that made it simple and easy to understand.....ON PURPOSE......., (no I don't know who wrote it).....or .....................................

....."..abridging the freedom of speech or of the press: or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble,, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."..................now, the courts interpret the law..and interpretation of the word .......NO is not very hard, even for Trump or any of those idiots..
................ok...................again................."NO LAW, means NO LAW"............

so the Trump crowd can talk, and talk..but..if Trump acts to put in a law that .."..abridges the freedom of speech or of the press.."........that will be it...Trump will be gone...and gone very soon after that action...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Don't forget the part where it says:

"Congress shall make no law." Presidents don't make laws. Executive orders have been held to be constitutional only if they "stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.

[Stuart G]

3. Thank You...for additional info...thank you again....

[jberryhill]

6. Not quite

See, e.g.:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-twitter/trump-unblocks-more-twitter-users-after-u-s-court-ruling-idUSKCN1LE08Q

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on May 23 that comments on the president’s account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Thank you for mentioning this. It's an interesting decision.

It makes the same basic point, though, that presidents can't just do stuff unless the Constitution allows it. Twitter was held to be a public forum, and therefore viewpoint-based exclusion of individuals "is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President's First Amendment interests." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4482187-Trump-Twitter-Ruling.html

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

2. The President cannot act . . .

. . . "to put in a law" in any event.

[Stuart G]

4. You are correct, but Trump ain't all there, and courts will rule he can't make a law..

[jberryhill]

5. Well...

First off, there are many laws which regulate speech (or expression of various kinds more broadly).

Unlawful forms of speech include false advertising , copyright infringement, forgery, solicitation of prostitution, various kinds of threats... the list goes on and on. There are laws against quite a variety of types of speech. Call in a bomb threat to an airport, and you will learn all about illegal speech.

While the president doesn’t make laws per se, Trump has, in fact, already been flagged for a first amendment violation, and is still firmly ensconced in office. In particular, he had to unblock people he had blocked on his official twitter account, as it was deemed by a court to be a first amendment violation for a government official to do so.

So, yes, he has been found in breach of the First Amendment and, no, it did not result in his being “gone” through whatever mechanism you believe that would happen.

[Stuart G]

7. Well, we will see, you make a good point, but it is just the beginning..and I believe, he will

do something that will do him in. And it will be some sort of attack on the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. He is not stable, and will get worse. Maybe it will be an attack on another part of the Constitution. But I do think that will happen, and soon.

[jberryhill]

8. What do you mean by "do him in"?

Are you suggesting that there is something he will do which which will cause a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict him on a bill of impeachment?

Even under the most optimistic outcome in November, that would require a substantial number of Republicans to go along with it, and that is entirely unlikely as they will probably agree with whatever idiotic thing he does.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. I really don't think there's anything he could do that might result in impeachment

followed by conviction by this Senate.

[MichMan]

11. How would your professor explain hate speech laws then ?

[X_Digger]

12. The US doesn't have 'hate speech' laws. n/t

[MichMan]

13. You are right unless they are categorized as "fighting words"

Not clear how those are defined however

[X_Digger]

14. They never existed as law, per se.

And via jurisprudence, they've slowly been whittled away.

I don't give a flying fuck what you call my momma, that doesn't excuse me putting my fist in your mouth.