What do you understand by the U.S. constitutional "right to free speech" both legally and in practice?

Also, how do you think the U.S. constitutional "right to free speech" relates to what you can and can't do on FreeLawAnswer.com ?

Finally, is the U.S. constitutional "right to free speech" the same as the "human" right (aka "natural" right) to free speech?


I'm most interested in how you think it relates to FreeLawAnswer.com , so if you only have time to answer one part of the question, please try to answer this one.
Answers:
FreeLawAnswer.com owns this space, therefore they can regulate without question what can be posted here.

The constitution limits only the government's oversight of freedom, it does not compel others to grant you the means to acheive that expression.

---

~There is no such thing as a "human" right or a "natural" right. Rights are granted by governments. The US constitution protects speech, to be sure, but not all speech is protected. To understand the limitations, I commend to your attention the myriad of cases in which the Supreme Court has addressed the issue. FreeLawAnswer.com in nothing special as regards the First Amendment. (Or, more accurately, the First Amendment in conjunction with the Fourteenth.)

---

An individuals right to free speech is limited by its intrusion on the rights and safety of others. The framers wrote the constitution with this balancing act in mind. For instance the classic example is that a person can not scream fire (when there is none) in a crowded theater. To do so could create a situation that could physically harm many people. Furthermore a person can not hide behind free speech to incite others to harm a person or to vandalize property. Another limitation courts take into consideration is the purpose of the communication. Does it serve any artistic, educational or entertainment value. With that in mind FreeLawAnswer.com is bound by these same constitutional limitations. Meaning that someone can not communicate information with the intent to physically harm any person, group of people, and or property.

---

The first amendment provides that "Congress" shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Yahoo is not congress. As a private person, I am free to impose all sorts of restrictions. People who use certain racial slurs, for example, must leave my house. Yahoo is also free to make whatever rules it wants. Congress is not free to do the same.