Free speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want to anyone, it’s intention is to protect you while speaking out against government officials and offices.
It sounds like you’re getting freedom of speech mixed up with the First Amendment. They aren’t the same thing. The First Amendment’s intention is to protect your freedom of speech from the government. If you want your freedom of speech protected from other things (such as your employer), the First Amendment won’t protect you.
No sir, no confusion here. You and I both said the same thing. Freedom of speech / free speech are the same thing in the US, a very specific legal construct under the first amendment, which many people don’t understand the boundaries of. I have a degree in this field, so I’m pretty up to speed on basic civil rights. Hence why I questioned the other user on why they think costco boycotting callaway because of a gross chud ad had anything to do with a law that deals with government overreach.
Now if the ad depicted the dude tackling Trump to the ground and threatening him for touching their underage caddy, and the FBI raided their offices in response, NOW we’d be talking about a first amendment issue as that’d be direct political commentary and an illegal response by the government.
It sounds like you’re getting freedom of speech mixed up with the First Amendment. They aren’t the same thing. The First Amendment’s intention is to protect your freedom of speech from the government. If you want your freedom of speech protected from other things (such as your employer), the First Amendment won’t protect you.
No sir, no confusion here. You and I both said the same thing. Freedom of speech / free speech are the same thing in the US, a very specific legal construct under the first amendment, which many people don’t understand the boundaries of. I have a degree in this field, so I’m pretty up to speed on basic civil rights. Hence why I questioned the other user on why they think costco boycotting callaway because of a gross chud ad had anything to do with a law that deals with government overreach.
Now if the ad depicted the dude tackling Trump to the ground and threatening him for touching their underage caddy, and the FBI raided their offices in response, NOW we’d be talking about a first amendment issue as that’d be direct political commentary and an illegal response by the government.
I’m not talking about the legal construct, though. I’m talking about the philosophical principle.