> Fair use applies to copyright, not trademark.

This is simply wrong. Here's a link for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

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.

*Except when it involves a lie or violation of a trademark.

Copyright claims are not criminal, they're civil; two different things.

Furthermore there are limits to free speech in the US. For example: obscenity, treats of violence, military secrets, etc.

Australia has no bill of rights, yet judges have upheld individual right to protests (Victoria has a Charter of Rights, but that's it). China has free speech in their constitution. Germany has free speech, unless it has anything to do with the original Nazi party symbols.

So civil courts need not uphold the constitution? I understand the limits exist, but they are entirely unconstitutional. If you believe it would be a good idea to have such a law, go ahead and pass an amendment.

Fraud has never been protected speech. If it was, Bernie Madoff would be a free man. Same with defamation.

You really think that these laws have never been challenged before?

When was that amendment passed?

The Supreme Court ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. that defamation is not protected speech, and the Supreme Court's word is final and absolute. No amendment is needed, as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled multiple times that freedom of speech is not absolute. Your arguments are the same kind of logic used by tax protesters who concoct arcane reasons that they don't have to pay income tax yet invariably find themselves convicted for tax evasion.

Fraud has been illegal for as long as the US has existed. It's not protected. If it was protected as free speech, fraud laws would have been overturned sometime in the last 225 years.

Further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

> the Supreme Court's word is final and absolute.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford the court ruled that the bill of rights does not apply to African Americans. Are you a supporter of that decision or did you mistype? Where does it say that the court gets to supersede the constitution? I think you will find that it does not.