User talk:73.38.177.7

United States free speech exceptions
Hi, I'd like to get some clarification from you regarding your edits to United States free speech exceptions. Why do you feel that the phrase "exceptions to free speech in the United States" is a misnomer? It seems like a perfectly descriptive title to me: it refers to categories and types of speech which courts have ruled are not protected by the 1st amendment's guarantee of free speech. This is what the article then goes on to describe. You seem to be hung up on the idea that things like incitement and threats are not free speech (as the courts have indeed ruled). But that is precisely what the article is about. It concerns speech which courts have decided does not constitute free speech under the 1st amendment. It seems reasonable to describe such categories of speech as "exceptions to free speech". So I guess I'm having trouble seeing what your issue was with the introductory paragraph, and why you feel it needed to be changed. CataracticPlanets (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not following some correct format for this response. I think this entire article ought to be scrapped since its very title is wrong, but short of that, it should be clarified that there are not, in fact, exceptions to free speech in the United States. An exception to free speech would be a law against 'hate speech' or a law against blasphemy; exceptions to rights are merely violations of rights. Where things like incitement, threats, etc are concerned, those can't be exceptions to something they were never a part of in the first place. You are correct to refer to them as "types of speech" because, indeed, they are. However, they are not "free speech". Free speech is any speech which does not violate the rights of others. Incitement (and so on) does exactly that. As I put in my last edit, calling these things exceptions would be like calling the illegality of murder an exception to one's liberty. The very concept and definition of "liberty" excludes any right to murder another person, thus murder being illegal is not an exception. Just the same, "free speech" has a definition, and the things that fall outside its definition are not exceptions. Or to put it another way, a cat has a definition. It's a mammal with tails, paws, ears, and other specific characteristics. A bird does not share this definition. In fact, a bird is outside this definition. However, birds aren't exceptions to cats. 73.38.177.7 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)