[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about that. His argument seems to be that we limit speech all the time (defamation and fraud were two examples) --- the mere fact that speech is limited is, apparently, not what causes something to violate the Constitution. Elliot seemed to be question what, then, causes a constitutional violation. Your response seemed to suggest that you think the differentiating factor was one of "laws" and "suits" (which I am assuming means the difference between civil and criminal.) There are countless examples of where civil laws are violative of the first amendment, so I don't think that's the distinction either...

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood 1 MMMMMM 0

Elwood is entirely correct. The point of my post is that the argument that M-F is unconstitutional simply because it "abridges" speech is bogus. Although the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . " it simply has not been and will never be interpreted literally. Thus, if you want to argue the constitutionality of M-F, MMMMMM, you must do more than quote the amendment if you wish to be taken seriously. You need to explain why this particular abridgment is unconstitutional based on First Amendment law as it has evolved over the centuries. BCPVP made an effort in this direction by bringing up "political" speech.

As an aside, MMMMMM's distinction between a criminal penalty and legal enforcement of private rights is totally wrong in this context. Private defamation suits are indeed abridgments of the freedom of speech. See NY Times v. Sullivan.