I'm not sure how your question pertains to my intended context? Or are you asking a related but separate question? Basically, should I defend what I said because I might have missed a connection or come at your question with a fresh perspective? I'm basically saying that a lot of people have been misunderstanding how the first was meant to protect them and in what environment. Like, the government can't protect me if I piss my employer off with some shit I said, because they have the right to fire me based on how they specifically want to run their company and if what I'm saying doesn't align with their values then I'm gone, but I can say whatever I want to another person on the street or at our government as long as it isn't the root of violence. Maybe I should have went into more detail why I even decided to post I guess.

Besides, it's up to that institution to protect itself by implementing its own rules and if that doesn't work a court of law decides. That's the best way I can put an answer to your question, I think.

You appear to have taken my question as hostile in some way. Wasn't meant that way at all. Sorry.

No, I apologize. There's a lot of tension going on in, probably the whole world, right now and I won't lie it's getting to me a bit, like a dark cloud looming over the world. If you'll accept my apology for coming at you like that I hope we can continue to communicate when one finds interest in what the others saying.