75 years ago he would have been in the NSB

wish we could take drumpf to court. He is doing so much harm from what he is saying.

hate speech. Our free speech protections are different from Europe's - for better or worse - but the filth spewing from RW demagogues is much the same.

as we all learned in high school civics:
The First Amendment does not protect speech like shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
why?
bec. the consequences can be anticipated and would be harmful.

the consequences of trumpf speech do not have to be imagined, we can read them in the newspaper every day, whether it is the 2 gay men being burned with scalding water, the 3 people who were fatally shot bec they were Spanish speakers, the Black man who had scalding water thrown on him.

trumpf speech deliberately brings about consequences which we as a nation do not endorse.

in your high school civics class, you were taught incorrectly. The example you use of shouting fire in a crowded theater not being protected by the first amendment was never part of any binding legal decision, it was merely an example thrown out by Oliver Wendell Holmes in a SC case which was later overturned, and has no basis in law. As abhorrent as it is, our first amendment protects what would commonly be defined as hate speech.

we're not talking legal precedents here.

if you think you have absolute right to speech try voicing publicly "I'm going to kill the president" and see how much freedom you have.

"Hate speech", on the other hand, is generally protected under the First Amendment.

Because the ACLU defended the KKK's right to march.

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-praises-cleveland-mayors-support-kkks-first-amendment-right-march

as in the cases I cited.

The Supreme Court has said that for speech to lose First Amendment protection, it must be directed at a specific person or group and it must be a direct call to commit immediate lawless action. The time element is critical. The Court wrote that “advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time … is not sufficient to permit the State to punish Hess' speech.” In addition, there must be an expectation that the speech will in fact lead to lawless action.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/what-constitutes-imminent-lawless-action

what is crucial is the time factor - is the speech calling for IMMINENT action, and the expectation that action will follow words which is what I said to begin with,

so what is the argument about?

that you used the example of yelling fire in a theater as the basis for why "Drumpf" speak should be prosecuted. You then used a couple of examples of violent acts such as the guy throwing boiling water on a gay couple, etc. as the grounds for such prosecution. That ignores the fact that unless Trump explicitly told his followers to go attack gays with boiling water, that the first amendment prohibitions that you are using as the basis for prosecuting such speech don't apply. As abhorrent as what he says may be, the things that Trump has said are no more prosecutable under the prohibitions to the first amendment as were comments made by Malcolm X, such as "It's time to stop singing and start swinging" or "This election is either going to be about ballots or bullets", which were also allowable under the first amendment, despite violence occurring after those comments were made by members of the Black Power movement.

Btw, this is in no way a defense of Trump, it's defense of the freedom of speech that we have in this country, which unfortunately all too many on both sides of the political spectrum would like to see curbed.

Governments can impose time/place restrictions within bounds on demonstrations, etc. So NYC can bar me from conducting a demonstration shutting down Fifth Avenue in rush hour.

Governments can punish or suppress speech aimed at inciting a crime. It has to be specific and imminent. It's completely legal for Americans of Palestinian heritage to walk around claiming that Israel should be destroyed, and all the Jews killed. And they do. They do. Farrakhan can give a ranting speech claiming all sorts of nasty things about the Jews, and he does.

Governments may not punish stupid speech, or vague speech, or speech that impugns various groups. Not in the US.

Government (through policing power) could arrest me if I stood up in Time Square, gave a ranting speech about Jews! The profund evil! and then pointed out several people in the area whom I believed to be Jews and started shouting "Get Them. They're the enemy! Kill them!" to the admiring crowd (should such a crowd exist). More likely, the crowd would respond by trying to get ME. But still, the police could arrest me if I were trying to incite an imminent crime, and they might have to take me into protective custody. Generally police may do what is necessary to prevent imminent threat to life or property.

The police could arrest me if I were communicating on the internet with several other maniacs and trying to arrange a bombing of the local post office because I was upset that the wrong commemorative stamp was issued. The speech is conspiracy to commit a specific and imminent lawless act.

These distinctions turn out to be very important. They are what protects the right of individuals to all sorts of political speech.

Laws in the EU are generally different, but they are also very prejudicially and unequally applied. There's hate speech every week in many mosques in Europe. No one's banned the Bible, or the Koran.

that only protected speech that they agreed with. That's an all too common wish here.

Not everyone here is a constitutional scholar, to say the least.

Given the way things have been going, I imagine it would be a death sentence in the US to say that Goldman Sachs was having a harmful effect on the country, or that GE should pay higher taxes.

If you have limitations to speech based on "harmfulness", history demonstrates that the truer the speech is the more harshly it will be suppressed.

taken to court over anti-Christian posts?
I see people posting all the time with hate for the religious, and Christanity specifically. Hatred over the faith over the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-everything positions the church takes is everywhere here. I don't mind, because I agree with the posts.
But under a system like that, those posts would be actionable because they discriminate against people of faith. Even if the plaintiff loses the case, you'd still be summoned to court to defend your opinion. You'd still have to pay for an attorney. Take time off work. Face down a judge.
It's fun to think about Donald Trump or Scott Lively going through all of that, but weapons you use against your enemies can be used against you.

of being the first to successfully prosecute someone for "blaspheming Christianity", if the First Amendment did not make that impossible.

As much as I hate Trump and his BS, I'd rather him being able to say whatever he wants during election season so everyone knows what he is and we can vote accordingly.
I watch what I say here on DU because I consider it a privilege to post here, and I don't want to get kicked off. I don't want to have to watch my tongue because I'm afraid of being prosecuted for my speech.

People don't think about the implications. They really don't.