midnight Target: So miko is saying that there is no real restriction on free speech?
Theoretically no, practically there has been occasional violations of that principle.
Even when that principle is violated, the prosecution is not presented as punishment for person having and sharing some ideas (which is what free speech is about) but for causing harm or endangering people by his/her actions.
In a famous case a women was convicted for telling her mother that "I wish all hispanics learned English" (in a bit more rude form) that was overheard and presented as having caused harm to anothrr person.
While the case is clearly trumped up, it clearly indicates that authorities respect the principle and try to avoid or misrepresent the case as other than a free speech issue, rather than violate it.
Her right to say bad things about hispanics to a willing audience was not disputed, like a preson can shout "fire" all he wants in his house as long as nobody objects.
Sometimes the distinction between speech and act is narrow and may be misrepresented.
For instance it is prefectly OK to discuss in a company that some person should be killed or government violently overturned but it is illegal to actually plot a murder or conspire a violent coup to that effect.
Wishfull thinking is a free speech while an act of conspiracy is a crime. the latter can be misrepresented as the former, as multiple government prosecutions and blacklistings of people in the 50s illustrate.
There are many borderline controversial cases that are solved one way or another to dissatisfaction of some people.
Is production of child pornography pictures that was generated artificially (no actual children involved and endangered) or creating fictional erotic literature cause harm to anyone? If not, it is a free speech issue and is protected, however disgusting.
Is preaching communism without conspiring to overturn the current order by force harms someone or puts him/her into imminent danger? If not, it is protected, however unpalatable.
What about profane language in public places? Many people feel hurt if they are forced to listen to it, so the profane language is banned in public though it is not a violation in a company of like-minded peope.
People who do not feel that profane language causes any harm feel unfairly restricted.
Some speech provokes or threatens to provoke violence. In those cases what's punished is the provocation, not the speech.
Airhead: the NRA opposes IN PRINCIPLE ANY restriction on gun ownership.
I am not current on the registration issue, but guns ownership is a right of all people who have not lost it. Felons do lose certain rights in our society and verification whether a person is a felon is totally consistent with gun ownerhsip right and NRA should not oppose it.
If what they oppose is not a verification itself but the governmental database kept on people who've applied for such verification, it's a very different issue altogether.
Such information may endanger a person if it falls into the wrong hands and the government has no business maintaining it. Desiring to legally own a firearm is not a crime and such people should not be treated differently from everyone else - otherwise it violates Equal Protection clause.
miko
