People can seemingly sue anyone for any reason. Like when a home invader sues homeowners when the homeowner's dog chewed them up. Or the person who sued McDonalds for getting burned by the cup of hot coffee. Many have won in those cases. Do I think that they were right? If it were up to me, I would give them a Judge Wapner laugh and hit them with costs of the entire legal process. There needs to be better rules regarding frivolous and frankly stupid lawsuits. Something I argue/discuss with an attorney friend all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There needs to be better rules regarding frivolous and frankly stupid lawsuits.

have to look at things from different perspectives, including ones that can negatively affect you.  Can I sue a person for them not adding me to their facebook page so I can post things they don't like?  Can a person put anti-gun signs in your yard and sue you if you throw them away?  Can a business  fire an employee that trashes the company in public?  Do you have a right to perform satanic rituals during church service?

It's called Motion to Dismiss, I doubt anyone can come up with a better system at present. Besides, some of the "ridiculous" cases you pointed out ended up won in the end, so either they weren't as ridiculous as you believe, or there is no system that can ensure the outcomes of lawsuits make sense.
In my opinion, the answer to your first two questions should be no, but the answer can be yes if the facebook page (or yard) is owned by a large and powerful organization, even private ones, which are assigned to do certain tasks. Likewise, I would say the answer to your third question can be no, in some circumstances. My beliefs are not consistent with any form of First Amendment law in the USA, which I consider to be garbage.

It's called Motion to Dismiss, I doubt anyone can come up with a better system at present. Besides, some of the "ridiculous" cases you pointed out ended up won in the end, so either they weren't as ridiculous as you believe, or there is no system that can ensure the outcomes of lawsuits make sense.

That said, common sense to me says if you don't belong on my property to begin with, you wouldn't have gotten bit. Yeah, probably something else to it, but if people left well enough alone, there wouldn't have been a case in the first place.

Since when did common sense have a presence in the modern law environment?

related
https://www.yahoo.com/music/nevertheless-tweeted-blockedbytrump-singer-songwriter-holly-figueroa-oreilly-talks-free-speech-crusade-211637460.html

Pres Trump blocks her from Twitter now she claims 1st A violation

Yahoo Music: So how did your “Twitter war” with Trump start?
Holly Figueroa O’Reilly: After the election, a lot of us were devastated and really upset, because we thought it was not going to go that way. So right afterwards, I started reply to his tweets — not all of them, but the ones that were especially dumb. I would just tweet dumb things myself underneath, at first, like, “Shut the f*** up. Stop talking. You’re not smart, you’re not helping yourself. Just stop tweeting, you’re bad at it!” At first he was just tweeting stuff like, “Ha ha, I won,” that kind of thing, but then his tweets became more problematic, so then I would reply [more seriously], with factual information and links to things that said exactly the opposite of what he was tweeting. And it kind of went from there.

And what was your tweet that broke the president’s back, so to speak? What made him block you?
The one that was the clincher was when Trump was overseas and met with the pope, and the pope was obviously not enthralled with his presence and was giving him a dirty look. I joked about that. That was literally it. That was the one that threw him over the edge. Right after that, I was blocked.

Criticizing the president is supposed to be one of the things most strongly protected by the First Amendment, according to the "scholarly" interpretation that you'll find online, and which is taught in law school. (Which is not the truth in America, namely that the First Amendment is next to meaningless).

Setting aside the reality of judicial and political corruption though, this person may have a good case according to the "scholarly" interpretation...seemingly a better case than us getting blocked from a news channel's Facebook. In my opinion though, while I might rule in our favor in the Facebook case, I might actually rule in favor of Trump even under the "scholarly" interpretation for two reasons: 1) the content of some of the described speech which caused her to be blocked contained swearing and no political opinions (note that her words might still be protected under the First Amendment if she said the same things elsewhere) and more importantly 2) Trump's twitter page existed before he became president and could be considered as a personal individual's page and not a government forum.

Hecking with profanity and personal insults

    vs.

Criticizing policies and decisions

Major difference.  One is protected, one is not.

Hecking with profanity and personal insults

    vs.

Criticizing policies and decisions

Major difference.  One is protected, one is not.

Nope technically both are protected until the first one turns into harassment.  But as a position of elected power like the president both should be protected as long as the insults don't turn into threats. 
You can use profanity and insults all you want its protected speech.

Nope technically both are protected until the first one turns into harassment.  But as a position of elected power like the president both should be protected as long as the insults don't turn into threats. 
You can use profanity and insults all you want its protected speech.

Although the First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” Americans don’t have the luxury of always saying whatever they want. Your right to free speech is limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it.

Here are six areas where your talk can make you liable in criminal or civil court.
1. Obscenity

 Most of the legal cases that concern sex and free speech have involved publications (a form of speech as far as the courts are concerned). Obscenity is not protected by the Constitution, but it has been difficult to define what is obscene. In 1973, the Supreme Court, in Miller v. California, came up with a three-part definition of obscene material. A work is legally considered obscene if

    an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material appeals to prurient (appealing to sexual desire) interest.
    the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, specifically defined by applicable state law.
    taken as a whole, the material lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

This limit on obscene speech also applies to broadcasting. The FCC controls what is allowed on air, so you can’t broadcast sounds or images that could be offensive to your audience or use language inappropriate for children.

However, the Supreme Court has, so far, kept the internet free of obscenity restrictions. You can make whatever statements you want on social media sites, but the owners of those sites have the freedom to censor or delete your content if they find it offensive.

6. Expressing Your Political Views

The law has never permitted Americans to protest in any way they wanted. While the government can’t control what you say, how you say it must be subject to what the courts consider an appropriate time, place, and manner.

Legal authorities have a responsibility to protect the safety of attendees at political gatherings and to protect protestors themselves. If authorities think you pose a sufficient risk, you can be restricted to a Free Speech Zone. These have been used since the 1980s, principally to contain protestors at political conventions.

House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity. They also have this authority at National Special Security Events. These events have included state occasions, of course, but also basketball championships, the Academy Awards, Olympic events, and the Super Bowl. A conviction can result in up to 10 years in a federal prison (another place where your freedom of speech is limited).

http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/03/21/culture/politics/6-exceptions-to-freedom-of-speech.html