imported post
This whole "rights are limited" argument has always been B.S.
There was no need to "limit" the right to "free speech" when it comes to shouting 'fire' in a theater, because such a vocal ejaculation ultimately serves as an act of aggression against the right of contract of the theater proprietor and the patrons. Thus it was never within the realm of "free speech" to begin with, thus unable to represent an example of free speech being found to be "not absolute".
This argument is literally identical to suggesting that the RKBA is not absolute because you don't have a right to draw and shoot people randomly whenever you please.
In fact, we all ought to recognize that initiatory force in the form of randomly shooting someone is never a function of any "right", thus there is no need to "limit" a right in order to apply penalty to the random shooting of strangers. Quite the contrary, the right to keep and bear arms is defined by its consisting of non-aggressive behavior, and thus according to definition it is (and ought to be considered by law) "absolute".
If you look at the philosophical origin of the concept of 'right', a the limit and extent of 'right' is defined by those actions which do not infringe upon the ability of another to exercise his own equivalent 'right' peacefully (yes, it may be recursive like that).
Thus, while I never have the right to aggress against another, I do possess the right to speak in any manner I see fit so long it doesn't constitute an act of aggression.
This right is not "limited", whatever some court may say (in the same way that every human possesses a right to bear arms, although many governments prohibit it).
Indeed, every valid example of a "limited" right is in fact an example of behavior well outside the defined boundary of 'right', behavior which never existed under the umbrella of 'right' to begin with.
The only appropriate standard is aggression. Absent aggression, rights are absolute, even when they are infringed up by government in opposition to natural right.
The non-right to aggress is equally absolute, and the boundary between right and non-right follows perfectly the boundary of aggressive behavior.
So, let's think for a minute. We've already established that, regardless of what some judge said, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not within the purview of any 'right', by definition.
What about property owners banning, say, shirtless males? Surely males have a 'right' to go shirtless as it does not constitute an act of aggression. However, against whom is a property owner aggressing by prohibiting shirtless patrons?
What about the business which bans guns? What initiatory force does that act represent, in a world where the decision to cross the threshold onto private property is always a voluntary one?
