Quote Originally Posted by djdez
The right to free speach is a two way street between you and your governments. Thats it. There is no other right to free speach.


Quote Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip View Post
I'm not certain what you mean here. The First Amendment guarantees a level of freedom of expression that is almost unparalleled in any other country, and with very, very few exceptions, the courts have been consistent in upholding those rights.
...
I don't really see how it's a two way street; as Lee said, it's a protection that is pretty fundamental to our political system.
I believe the point djdez was making is that the first amendment only bars
the federal government from censorship and other similar infringements of
free speech - it in no way affects one party's ability to sue another. The wording
of the first amendment is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...
So the first amendment doesn't say "NATS can't sue you for libel after you've
said something". Rather, the first amendment is concerned with what congress
can and cannot do. Further, several high court decisions have well established
that the first amendment bars the government from preventing the speech AHEAD
OF TIME (censorship), but is not a protection from prosecution AFTERWARDS
if the speech is unlawful on it's face (threatening someone) or is unlawful in it's
intended effects (conspiracy to commit a crime, libel).

Where I disagree with djdez is that djdez implies that the first amendment, and
other similar laws elsewhere, CREATE the right of free speech. In fact the bill
of rights does not claim to create or establish any rights. What it does is bar the
government from INFRINGING on already existing rights, rights which the
founders felt were part of being human - "endowed by their creator". That rights
cannot be created by governments is also clear if you consider the definition
of a right. A right is something that the government cannot legitimately take away.
Obviously if the government gave you your rights, the government could take
them away. Since govt can't take away rights, govt must not have given them.

So yes, the constitution only prevents the government, and by it's words only
the federal government, from infringing on rights. The first amendment doesn't
have any affect on libel and slander suits. On the other hand, the first amendment
does recognize, by implication, that a right to free speech already existed before
the government was created. Since the right always existed, there must be some
limit to how much one person can interfere with the rights of another.

In fact, that limit is defined by the rights of the other person. The blogger has the
right to say what they will. NATS has a right to do business without malicious
interference by someone lying about them, falsely accusing them of making death
threats. The right of one person to earn a living probably takes precedence over
the right of another to attack them with lies, I would say.