I can't believe you're still on this. Get another hobby.

YOU created the 'troop movement' hypothetical (and numerous others) and then you try and attack me for responding to them? What you're doing... whether you admit it or are aware of it or not.... is beginning with what she said, and then demanding that I accept numerous hypotheticals that YOU created... each of which requires that I expand my agreement with you... to the point where you claim I am agreeing with things that SHE didn't mention, and I don't agree with.

I won't walk your path, counselor.

The facts remain that you claimed 'apparently you (meaning me) do not' support the issue of government intervening to stop posting of things like troop movements during times of war.... when I demonstrably do... since I said it was illegal. That's just a blatant falsehood and an example of you walking me down a path

Your immaterial aside as to whether this is ACTUALLY 'illegal' or not (which of course ignores my numerous comments to the same effect) is a red herring by you... because if the government can 'intervene to stop posting things like troop movements during a time of war' (which we both apparently support their right to do so on a limited and targeted basis) then it IS for all intents and purposes 'against the law'.... what most people would call 'illegal'.

So enough about that crap.

Does this hamstring government as The Justice said??? Absolutely. As it should. That's what I said and you have yet to address this to the contrary, choosing to instead take issue with 'how' I say things or what the voices in your head tell you I meant (as opposed to what I said I meant) and not address the very simple comment that I made... that free speech is ABSOLUTELY a right we have for the specific (but not sole) intent of 'hamstringing' the government. It is notable (to me anyway) that every item listed in the BOR is specifically articulated to do this very thing.... 'in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers'... aka 'hamstringing them'.

Can they get around such a hamstring? Absolutely. Obvious ones like the War powers act... States of National Emergency... other such broad strokes that don't immediately come to my mind all provide all but unlimited ability for the government to suspend or inhibit (aka, make illegal) the free exercise of all sorts of Constitutionally protected rights. Beyond that, they are bound by laws. If they want to infringe upon our rights otherwise, they can pass a (Constitutionally allowed) law.... like they did for machine guns etc.... the list of such is long...

Although they are generally protected, NO rights are without potential limits... and when those limits are enacted, the court has similarly held that they should reflect the sort of infringement that is as narrow and limited as possible.... which of course, is ALSO a way of saying the government is 'hamstrung'.

That freaking simple.