Bildu recibe entre aplausos etarras asesinos

#92 mentira en eeuu la libertad de expresion no tiene ningun limite cuando le aplicas algun limite deja de ser libertad de expresion es verdad que vivimos en un mundo carente de ella en terminos absolutos molestar a alguien con palabras nunca puede ser un delito tienes la opccion de no escuchar si te resulta repulsivo pero nunca de coartar el derecho de las personas de expresar sus ideas o pensamientos

#94 La libertad de expresion en eeuu es un derecho fundamental recogida en su constitucion que ciertos gobiernos intenten regularla no es mas que un indicativo de falta de ella por suerte para ellos la constitucion tiene prevalencia frente sus pensamiento autoritarios

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/primers/basics/
https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/3-3-freedom-of-speech/

Modern decisions afford freedom of speech the strictest level of scrutiny; only a compelling government interest can justify an exception, which must use the least restrictive means possible (Sable Communis. of California, Inc. v. FCC, 2010). For the purpose of brevity, this book reviews the constitutional exceptions to free speech in statutes criminalizing fighting words, incitement to riot, hate crimes, and obscenity.

Georgia enacted the following criminal statute: “Any person who shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence…opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace…shall be guilty of a misdemeanor” (Ga. Code § 26-6303). The US Supreme Court determined that this statute was overbroad, void for vagueness, and unconstitutional under the First Amendment (Gooding v. Wilson, 2010).

Ohio enacted a statute that criminalized “advocat[ing]…the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” and “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism” (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was convicted under the statute after the media broadcast films of him leading a KKK meeting. The US Supreme Court held, “Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 2010).

St. Paul, Minnesota, enacted the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which prohibited the display of a symbol that a person knows or has reason to know “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender” (Ordinance, St. Paul, Minn., Legis. Code § 292.02 (1990)). In R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the US Supreme Court held that this ordinance was unconstitutional on its face because regulation was based on the content of speech, with no additional requirement for imminent lawless action.

#97 De tu link:

There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment at all.

#93 Me da que no entiendes lo que es "libertad". Hay dos tipos de libertad según Isaiah Berlin (autor que no a todos nos gusta), la "positiva" y la "negativa". Pues la libertad que se da dentro de un estado es la negativa, aquella que designa las normas jurídicas que estás obligado a cumplir.

No amigo, no vives en la jungla, vives en sociedad, y en sociedad la libertad se ejerce con "peros".

#77 tiene toda la cara de Vasco el tío....madre mía menudos genes tienen.

y que quieres que hagan? ir a votar para que se limpien el culo con su voto mientras españolizan a sus hijos?

#112 obligarles a formar parte de españa contra su voluntad y forzarles a aprender el idioma y a ver su television y tal, tu no lo entenderias nunca por que tu idioma es el epañol si no llorarias

#114 Forzarles a ver su television xD.