"I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute...You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment." --Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Senator Schumer is wrong. He illogically packages libel, inciting panic, etc with legitimate forms of free expression as reasons to limit your speech (it's a trick that politicians have been using for ages to curb your liberty. Ayn Rand called this the "Fallacy of Package-Dealing." She described it as "failing to discriminate crucial differences... consist[ing] of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or 'package,' elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value."[1]).
Is it rational to claim one's right to free speech includes threatening another with physical injury or death, falsely smearing one's reputation, or inciting a panic that could bring harm to another individual? Of course not. These are not exceptions to or limits on the First Amendment, they are logical restraints on irrational behavior with the purpose of protecting individual rights--which is what proper law is all about. There is no such thing as a "right to threaten", a "right to libel," or a "right to incite panic." Such things have nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Your right to free speech is absolute. Absent a violation of another's rights (which is not a right in and of itself), the government has no right to interfere with the exercising of your rights. If you find that the best way to spread your ideas is by donating your money to a candidate that espouses your ideas on a world stage, how can that be logically deemed a violation of another's rights that warrants government action?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24
