Indeed, and read what they're actually saying. For some reason, you took what I was saying (i.e. that it was a limit) and turned it into some sort of qualification or reflection upon the totality of my beliefs. Nowhere was I saying that I "believe one's rights are unlimited? Free to do whatever you want, anytime, anywhere, to anyone?" That was something you constructed. We can disagree where the line is, but to argue it's not a limit is disingenuous.
I'll give you an example:
If I tell you "you're free to say anything you want, and I may not do anything to punish you for saying something" and then say "if you say something that scares someone and they hurt themselves as a result, I'm going to lock you up" then I have given you two conflicting pieces of information. The second is certainly a limit on the freedom expressed in the first. When evaluating whether a particular limit on freedom of speech is acceptable, it should be taken with that in mind, because though I agree certain limits are acceptable (assault is, after all, a form of speech - one that I think may be limited), the measure of where the limit stands should be strictly and narrowly tailored.
If people like VW_Factor could get beyond whether it is or is not a limit, they would see that the main point is that I see McCarthy screwing up the standard that was originally stated in
Schenck. In that example she's mangling, something which poses imminent and immediate harm was used as an example of acceptable limits to free speech. Her high/standard capacity magazine ban doesn't address something of that standard, but we already have laws that do!
