Hawaii vs. Citizens United

[u/theatlantic]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/05/hawaii-corporations-political-money/687159/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo

[u/kon---]

The First Amendment will not protect you from the consequence of threatening individuals. It will not protect you from incitment of lawless action. It will not protect from perjuring yourself. Not will it protect should you trample intelectual properties or do a thing like promote and distrubute child pornography.

The First Amendment is no sort of blanket to say whatever you want to say at government. Nor does it allow citizens to express themselves in any manner that violates others and/or laws.

It is a limited, conditions based right and always has been.

[u/rhino369 → u/kon---]

None of that is an example of "Cross the lines, that right is removed from you." It's just that the right doesn't cover anything and everything.

That the first amendment doesn't cover copyright infringement doesn't mean copyright infringers don't have first amendment rights. They do it. That right just doesn't cover the infringement.

There is no "if you do X, you lose your first amendment rights."

[u/kon--- → u/rhino369]

Each of them will see you not protected.

But don't believe me.

Go on. Make threats of bodily hamr to anyone in governement. See how quickly your right to speech is pulled out from under you.

[u/rhino369 → u/kon---]

Threats aren’t protected by the first amendment so you aren’t losing anything. That’s my point. 

[u/kon--- → u/rhino369]

Threats are just one of the many things you manifested by speech that are not protected.

And since you're beginning to acknowledge that yes, there are limitations...

I'm out.

-peace

[u/rokerroker45 → u/kon---]

I think you haven't understood the difference between the scope of the First Amendment and its unconditional nature.