There's too much free speechifiying going on.

[RoadKingLarry]

Maybe there is something I don't understand. If you sue me for $1000, and you win, isn't that supposed to mean that the $1000 is rightfully yours, and I have no rights to it? And if you sue me for libel, and you win, isn't that supposed to mean I had no right to write what I wrote?

Again, we must understand what our freedoms actually entail. A right to speak is not a right to slander, correct?

You are missing the point.
If you libel someone and they sue for damages caused by your libel and win that wasn't the government abridging your freedom of speech that was the result of a goverment entity, the court, agreeing that your speech caused the plaintif harm.

[Sergeant Bob]

0846: first WTC impact
0903: second WTC impact
0937: Pentagon impact
1007: Flight 93 crashes, still several minutes out from DC

Even without the 41 minute unplanned delay at takeoff, I doubt the politicians would have still been hanging out in the big obvious targets by the time it got there.  Frankly, I'm surprised the folks at the Pentagon hadn't taken more precautions.

No need to go harshing my happy dreams! 

[Perd Hapley]

You are missing the point.
If you libel someone and they sue for damages caused by your libel and win that wasn't the government abridging your freedom of speech that was the result of a goverment entity, the court, agreeing that your speech caused the plaintif harm.

Of course they aren't abridging my freedom of speech. As I keep saying, things like libel are things we do NOT have a right to. Obviously, no one can infringe on a right that isn't.

So the court is agreeing with the plaintiff that I had no right to libel them; is that what you're saying?