[–] Sosacms 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You are thinking about it backwards. All speech is "covered" by the 1st amendment because the 1st amendment is the written contract that the government will never claim power over our good given right to express our own thoughts. This is such a non-negotiable point that it was made the 1st and most critical protection from government power.

The supreme Court had to make the tough call to disqualify some speech as just speech. Like shouting "fire" in a crowded are (same as pulling a fire alarm) and direct calls of violence.

[–] ChristopherMarlowe 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yes, the exceptions to free speech are those times we can be held to account for speaking. 1. Defamation; 2. Call for immediate unlawful activity (amounting to conspiracy); 3. violation of NDA or trade secrets; 4. disclosure of classified material; etc... Everything else is permitted. I believe that pornography should not be legal and/or there should be no copyright protections of porn.

[–] Sosacms 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I may be wrong but even defamation is for the civil courts.

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

NO

[–] FIADSH 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Any laws that would "clarify" "offensive" speech / statements would, by their very nature, be
subjective. Therefore, they would only serve to limit ALL forms for speech.
SCOTUS has ruled already that there is not such thing as "Hate Speech".
Folks just don't want to acknowledge this, because "Ma Fellins and Shit."

[–] nothingoriginal 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Supreme Court rulings are law. This would be redundant.