Lol as much damage as his guy has done to the nation and he would like to now limit free speech

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/obama-enters-media-wars-why-his-recent-attack-free-speech-so-dangerous-radical

He thinks what you can listen to should be limited. No thanks. This is America clown shoes and if people aren't smart enough to understand and sort through the BS, oh well. Especially, alternatives other than DNC talking points. He scared that people will hear too much of the truth.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Tellthetruth wrote:He thinks what you can listen to should be limited. No thanks. This is America clown shoes and if people aren't smart enough to understand and sort through the BS, oh well. Especially, alternatives other than DNC talking points. He scared that people will hear too much of the truth.

You would think that after 8 years PeeDog would finally let go of his hatred for President Barrack Obama; but, you can never underestimate good old PeeDog......

How is pointing out the fact that Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama wishes to LIMIT the First Amendment is HATE?

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/outline-constitutional-law-law/freedom-of-expression-outline-constitutional-law-law/the-limits-of-first-amendment-protection/

The Limits Of First Amendment Protection

A. “Fighting Words”

1. Free speech does not apply to “fighting words.” These are words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

2. “Fighting words” fall outside First Amendment protection because they:

a. Form no essential part of any exposition of ideas; and

b. Are of such slight social value that society’s interest in order and morality outweighs any benefit derived from them.

B. Defamation

1. Public Officers

First Amendment protection extends to defamation of a public officer’s official conduct, since such conduct is a matter of public concern. It does not apply, however, to defamation made with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge of falsehood or with reckless disregard of whether or not a statement is false.

2. Public Figures

a. Erroneous statements about public figures receive First Amendment immunity, even if such statements intentionally inflict emotional distress. Immunity does not apply to defamation made with actual malice. Even without actual malice, however, publishers may be liable for defaming public figures when:

i. The substance of the defamation risks substantial danger to reputation; and
ii. The publisher engages in highly unreasonable conduct departing in the extreme from professional standards.

b. The media are not protected by rights of free speech and press for obtaining news information through such misconduct as tortious or criminal activity. This is particularly true where the information is of minimal value to the public.

3. Private Figures

The First Amendment does not shield the media from liability for defamation of private figures.

a. Private persons lack public figures’ access to the media to counteract false statements. Private individuals’ greater vulnerability to injury and states’ interest in protecting such people justify media liability.

b. People drawn into the public forum largely against their will are not public figures. Therefore, a publisher may be held liable, without proof of actual malice, for defaming a private person regarding a matter that is of purely private concern.

4. Group Libel

Libel is not within the area of speech protected by the First Amendment. Since libel aimed at individuals may be punished, government may proscribe libel directed at groups. Restrictions on libelous expression must not be willful, purposeless, or unrelated to maintaining peace and well-being.

C. Invasion of Privacy

1. Public Record/Public Concern

Freedom of speech and press renders the media immune from liability for invasion of a non-public figure’s privacy where the disseminated information is:

a. Truthful;

b. Of legitimate public concern; and

c. Derived from publicly available records, such as official court documents.

Government may constitutionally punish such dissemination only when the punishment is narrowly tailored to a state interest of the highest order.

***********