I feel like there are two roles "the first ammendment isn't absolute" plays in discussions. The first is to suggest: well if we recognize some exceptions to the principle of free speech you can't (tho u could) claim that any exception is unjustified so you have to actually debate the costs and benefits of allowing this kind of speech.
I feel like there are two roles "the first ammendment isn't absolute" plays in discussions. The first is to suggest: well if we recognize some exceptions to the principle of free speech you can't (tho u could) claim that any exception is unjustified so you have to actually debate the costs and benefits of allowing this kind of speech.
I have mixed feelings about this. OTOH it kinda functions as an antidote to our attitude of: whatever the framers said must be right assumption. OTOH it doesn't acknowledge our vast amount of historical evidence that limitations on speech must be approached carefully.
The other place I see it is more of an argument from ignorance: well it has exceptions and I don't know what they are and you probably don't either so maybe this is one of them.
I feel like there are two roles "the first ammendment isn't absolute" plays in discussions. The first is to suggest: well if we recognize some exceptions to the principle of free speech you can't (tho u could) claim that any exception is unjustified so you have to actually debate the costs and benefits of allowing this kind of speech.
I have mixed feelings about this. OTOH it kinda functions as an antidote to our attitude of: whatever the framers said must be right assumption. OTOH it doesn't acknowledge our vast amount of historical evidence that limitations on speech must be approached carefully.
The other place I see it is more of an argument from ignorance: well it has exceptions and I don't know what they are and you probably don't either so maybe this is one of them.