Why is the term "Freedom of Speech" so misunderstood?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Why is it that such a simple, yet powerful passage can be so amazingly misunderstood? Why is it when we have this passage we are ok with the idea of a unelected body being able to determine what can and cannot be put on the airwaves? How is it possible that a "free society" have restrictions on how we express ourselves? We don't have a right to not be offended.

At the same time why do people seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from reaction or consequences of speech? If I am a prominent bar owner for example, and I am found marching in a neo-nazi rally, my patrons will likely leave and my business will fail. It's not anyone violating my rights it's simply consequences for my actions. When Kathy Griffin for example expressed "SIJ" at the emmy's, some were crying foul that the network had "violated" her freedom of speech by not showing it later. No, a company made a business decision. If were example, no one responds to this thread and it sinks like a stone, it is merely everyone here saying that the topic isn't worthy enough of discussing. It isn't because my rights have been violated.

People don't seem to understand the first amendment on either side really.

"Suck it Jesus"

She actually said that on national TV?

:rofl:

Ah, well, join the club. I don't think the Second Amendment only gives the National Guard the right to have guns, so obviously I want the right to own tactical nuclear weapons. :eyes:

I'm surprised this hasn't already been discussed on here, her speech and the fallout. I am not quite getting your analogy on the bottom.

As to the Second, well, some people use the rhetorical argument that the Amendment renders all gun laws unconstitutional, so if I'm against a certain federal or state law, obviously I want everybody to have the right to own and deploy field artillery or nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

Or, alternately, that the Second mentions only the "militia", i.e., the National Guard, and that any restriction placed on non-National Guard members is 100% correct and untouchable constitutionally speaking, and if I argue otherwise I just an Democrat-hating knuckle-dragging gun nut that barely has two brain cells to knock together because my primitive cranium JUST CAN'T COMPREHEND something so clearly written as the Second Amendment!

Usually there's a "shiny metal penis" comment somewhere in the subthread at that point... :-)