Billionaire CEO gunned down in broad daylight.

[Pornhubby]

[Dudester]

I am a free speech absolutist. I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say what you feel. The first amendment to the US Constitution doesn't have any restrictions, but in the 1920's the US Supreme Court ruled that the end of free expression is your right to yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.

Since time immemorial, there are three offenses that civilized society will not tolerate, and one of those is the unsanctioned murder of another individual. The penalty for this offense ranges from exile to the death penalty.

It's too early for Luigi to say what validation he felt he had in shooting a man in the back. Shooting someone in the back instantly negates a self defense justification. Law school graduates might want to prosecute the case, but it's entirely possible that Luigi's lawyers will mount a difficult to overcome defense based on Luigi's looks alone.

I did an internship in a District Attorney's office. 99% of the cases we accepted were slam dunks, that, even at trial, only took three hours to resolve. One attempted murder case I sat in on, the suspect managed to get one of those ultra liberal west coast lawyers that took a three hour trial and stretched it to thirty six hours with the most convoluted throwing spaghetti at the wall defenses. Despite the valiant defense, the suspect was found guilty and sentenced to 99 years. The judge then had the courtroom cleared, except for the defense and prosecution teams. The judge then issued a blistering take down of the defense attorney that ended with a pledge by the judge to begin a disbarment investigation.

It's way too early for Luigi's case to indicate a direction, but  there is no doubt in my mind, that as I type this, lonely women are taking love letters, tonight, to the post office with Luigi's name on the front of the envelope.

[MissBarbara]

The first amendment to the US Constitution doesn't have any restrictions, but in the 1920's the US Supreme Court ruled that the end of free expression is your right to yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.

You couldn't be more incorrect. The entire point of the 1st Amendment is to place one gigantic restriction. Here's the text (with my emphasis):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's the point: To restrict Congress from passing a law that might inhibit the free exercise of religion, free speech, etc.

On top of that, the courts have defined -- and restricted -- the wording of the text many times, including in reference to all the various protections afforded in the text. The case you're referring to, Schenck v. United States, was handed down in 1919. The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that a group of people who were handing out flyers urging resistance to the draft during World War I, were guilty of violating the Espionage Act, and were not protected by the free speech provisions of the 1st Amendment. Here are Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famous (and often misquoted) line from his majority opinion:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic...The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

Note how Holmes stated "falsely shouting fire," and how he did not refer to it as a "crowded theater."

Since time immemorial, there are three offenses that civilized society will not tolerate, and one of those is the unsanctioned murder of another individual. The penalty for this offense ranges from exile to the death penalty.

What are the other two offenses?

Meanwhile, be careful asserting "what civilized society will not tolerate" removed from the context of what the law dictates will not be tolerated. There are countless examples throughout history of legally unsanctioned slayings that were, in fact, tolerated by the given society. The murder of Benito Mussolini in April 1945 -- after he had been deposed and was fleeing Italy for Switzerland -- is one of very many examples.

It's way too early for Luigi's case to indicate a direction, but  there is no doubt in my mind, that as I type this, lonely women are taking love letters, tonight, to the post office with Luigi's name on the front of the envelope.

That statement is so outrageously objectionable that refutation isn't necessary.

Otherwise, if you wish to refer to yourself as a "1st amendment absolutist," you would be very well served by first familiarizing yourself with that the text of the 1st Amendment says, and how it has been interpreted by the courts for the past 230+ years.