View Full Version : What does the First Ammendment mean?
Duke of Gloucester
04-22-2006, 09:57
A question for the USA members of the forum.
Following the charging of Wang Wenyi for heckling the Chinese president, what rights does the first ammendment protect?
From BBC news:
"Her lawyer argued she was entitled to free speech under the First Amendment.
Prosecutors said the amendment did not allow her to break the law."
So why does the First Ammendement allow laws that restrict free speech, or am I missing something here?
BBC website for the full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4931914.stm)
A question for the USA members of the forum.
Following the charging of Wang Wenyi for heckling the Chinese president, what rights does the first ammendment protect?
From BBC news:
"Her lawyer argued she was entitled to free speech under the First Amendment.
Prosecutors said the amendment did not allow her to break the law."
So why does the First Ammendement allow laws that restrict free speech, or am I missing something here?
BBC website for the full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4931914.stm)
The charge she is facing is
Wang Wenyi, 47, was charged with harassing, intimidating and threatening a foreign official.
Free Speech means that the state can not prosecute you for your speech unless you are advocating violence against others or calling for the overthrow of the government through violence.
So one must review what did the individual state to the Chinese offical.
Now if her statements from the news article are correct
She shouted in Chinese: "Stop oppressing the Falun Gong" and "Your time is running out".
She also shouted in English: "President Bush, stop him from killing."
I don't see where the state has a case against her - unless there is more compiling evidence, it would seem to me that the government conducted the arrest at the time because of the embrassment to the Chinese Official being heckled at the White House.
What I don't know is if there is a law about heckling officals from foreign nations on the White House grounds. The government has in the past passed laws that limit some free speech within the confines of the place of business of the government. Remember several individuals were removed from the State of the Union Speech because they violated one of the rules of the house by wearing political statements on their shirts.
rory_20_uk
04-22-2006, 14:51
It smacks of what the British government did when the Chinese came here: the police blatantly acted in an unlawful way in preventing demonstrations and the commission that investigated this agreed... but that was several months after the Chinese premier was out of the country.
Arresting her on whatever grounds is a fait accompli as they wanted her out of there and that's what they've managed to do.
~:smoking:
A question for the USA members of the forum.
Following the charging of Wang Wenyi for heckling the Chinese president, what rights does the first ammendment protect?
From BBC news:
"Her lawyer argued she was entitled to free speech under the First Amendment.
Prosecutors said the amendment did not allow her to break the law."
So why does the First Ammendement allow laws that restrict free speech, or am I missing something here?
BBC website for the full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4931914.stm)
There's a law called drunk and disorderly conduct, and I'm pretty sure disrupting the peace is along the same premise. There was no reason for her heckling a foriegn official on an official visit. I don't know if I'm wrong here but the White House would be the presidents private home, not public grounds, thus you could remove whomever you wanted. She's like those arseholes at the state of the union address who decided not to dress for the occasion, gotta love the T-Shirt and pants at the State of the Union. Now its just a few days until the bleeding heart liberals start screaming he's suppressing the masses for removing a heckler.
rory_20_uk
04-22-2006, 17:46
I'm far from a bleeding heart liberal (just ask Idaho).
The powers that be have ignored these breaches of human rights even as they invade other countries to uphold them, so scared are they of loosing a trading partner.
One person has the courage to officially demonstrate what is going on, and this is heckling.
If there is no other forum to voice these views, what choice is there but to heckle?
I hope that the white house are not private grounds, especially as press briefings are given here to th nation. If censorship is possible to such a degree then I feel that the first amendment is all but destroyed.
~:smoking:
Proletariat
04-22-2006, 18:20
Yeah, Freedom of Speech is a total joke in this country. I refuse to believe otherwise until every single politician or head of state in this country is interrupted and heckled and jeered in every public appearance they have. What is the point of having this so called freedom if any old shmuck can actually get through a speech coherently?
I've already ordered 10 'Free Wang Wenyi' t-shirts.
:laugh4:
What is the pointFree tibet!
of having NO OIL FOR BLOOD!
this so called freeGuantanimo must go
dom if any old shmuck Bush stop him from killing!
can actually get Stop drilling in Alaska!
through a speech Fund the public schools system!
coh 2000 dead!
coh You can't take my freedoms!
coherently?:wall: :wall: :wall:
I've already ordered 10 'Free Wang
Not very PG-13.
Soulforged
04-22-2006, 18:43
Free Speech means that the state can not prosecute you for your speech unless you are advocating violence against others or calling for the overthrow of the government through violence.Let me see if I get this right. Some are of the interpretation that the second amendment, specially the part about the militia, means that in any case the people will have arms to defend and overthrow the government, arms are for act. Now you're saying me that the first amendment fobids public speeches where you make apologies about the overthrowing of the government. So you can act but you cannot tell it to anybody, unless you tell it with calm? How cool is that!!
Let me see if I get this right. Some are of the interpretation that the second amendment, specially the part about the militia, means that in any case the people will have arms to defend and overthrow the government, arms are for act. Now you're saying me that the first amendment fobids public speeches where you make apologies about the overthrowing of the government. So you can act but you cannot tell it to anybody, unless you tell it with calm? How cool is that!!
You have it wrong - using the term apology would indicate something about a complete misunderstanding of not only the 1st Ammendment but also the 2nd.
one can not advocate the violent overthrow of the government and not suffer some sort of consequences. However the lady was not advocating the violent overthrown of the government of the United States, nor does it seem she was advocating the death of the Chinese President. So the reasoning behind her arrest on the surface (according to the article) is political.
Talking about other countries and their violent oppression of their people is allowed, however as demonstrated by the news article - it seems it is not allowed in certain places.
The 2nd Ammendment allows for the procession of weapons by the citizens to secure the freedom of the state.
Soulforged
04-22-2006, 21:47
You have it wrong - using the term apology would indicate something about a complete misunderstanding of not only the 1st Ammendment but also the 2nd.If it's a crime, as stealing for example, then making public speeches to demonstrate it's goodness will be apology, apology of crime, another crime in itself, at least here.
one can not advocate the violent overthrow of the government and not suffer some sort of consequences.That's your opinion I still consider it just words.
The 2nd Ammendment allows for the procession of weapons by the citizens to secure the freedom of the state."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So your interpretation will be that a well regulated militia refers in some form to the army? Or is it another military force? And that part of security of a free state bothers me somehow... Your interpretation appears to be more adequate, however I've read the interpretation of certain people who talk about violent overthrowing of the government, based on the same text. In the second case government is the same as state, that's two interpretations that are mutually exclusive extracted from the same text.
I don't find any problem with the both of them (speech and act), my problem is with banning the first one. The free flow of ideas cannot be stopped, and it's not only a moral precept, I'm talking about facts, the ideas will be transmited wheter you punish it or not. Besides the government is there to serve you, not the other way, so it cannot reprehend acts in wich people advocate the violent overthrowing of it. And if you agree with that second interpretation of the second amendment, you should see a contradiction, or at least an incoherence on the evaluation of the free speech.
rory_20_uk
04-22-2006, 21:59
The government is there to serve itself. The people may get some things, but invariably the best of the pickings go to the leaders and their friends / cronies etc etc.
~:smoking:
If it's a crime, as stealing for example, then making public speeches to demonstrate it's goodness will be apology, apology of crime, another crime in itself, at least here.
Incorrect - your understanding of Freedom of Speech is not consistent with the principle as defined by the United States Constitution's 1st Ammendment, which is the subject of this discussion.
That's your opinion I still consider it just words.
Yes indeed it is just words - however its not protected speech under the 1st Ammendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So your interpretation will be that a well regulated militia refers in some form to the army? Or is it another military force? And that part of security of a free state bothers me somehow... Your interpretation appears to be more adequate, however I've read the interpretation of certain people who talk about violent overthrowing of the government, based on the same text. In the second case government is the same as state, that's two interpretations that are mutually exclusive extracted from the same text.
Well regulated militia has been defined. No need for me to futher define it. One must understand the principle behind the 2nd Ammendment in order to discuss it. It is a two part sentence that are inter-related to each other.
I don't find any problem with the both of them (speech and act), my problem is with banning the first one. The free flow of ideas cannot be stopped, and it's not only a moral precept, I'm talking about facts, the ideas will be transmited wheter you punish it or not. Besides the government is there to serve you, not the other way, so it cannot reprehend acts in wich people advocate the violent overthrowing of it. And if you agree with that second interpretation of the second amendment, you should see a contradiction, or at least an incoherence on the evaluation of the free speech.
You might read what I have written - since you are not actually following what I wrote.
I don't see where the state has a case against her - unless there is more compiling evidence, it would seem to me that the government conducted the arrest at the time because of the embrassment to the Chinese Official being heckled at the White House.
The principle of free speech that I have discussed is also consistent with finding the lady innocent of the charges that the state is attempting to level against her.
The advocation of violence is not protected speech - nor is the advocating of violent overthrow of one's own government.
Soulforged
04-23-2006, 01:22
Incorrect - your understanding of Freedom of Speech is not consistent with the principle as defined by the United States Constitution's 1st Ammendment, which is the subject of this discussion. Not following you here Red. How does this relates to the definition of apology of crime, as this was the point of that paragraph.
Yes indeed it is just words - however its not protected speech under the 1st Ammendment.
one can not advocate the violent overthrow of the government and not suffer some sort of consequences.I took that as your personal opinion, maybe I was wrong.
Well regulated militia has been defined. No need for me to futher define it. One must understand the principle behind the 2nd Ammendment in order to discuss it. It is a two part sentence that are inter-related to each other.Indeed one must understand it, even when I only made reference to a certain interpretation of it, of people who understand it. To me a well regulated militia could mean a lot of things, as a well regulated militia plus "to secure the freedom of the state", the following "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." only confuses me further. I'm making my own interpretation now, but I believe it's consistent with a protection provided to the people against the power of the state, not to protect it, maybe state was used the same as nation.
The principle of free speech that I have discussed is also consistent with finding the lady innocent of the charges that the state is attempting to level against her.
The advocation of violence is not protected speech - nor is the advocating of violent overthrow of one's own government.I'm not answering to you in regards to this particular case, only to what freedom of speech means, and particulary in the first amendment. The interpretation above (yours) does not surge from the text of the amendment itself, since it makes no exceptions, so I assume you're extracting it from other texts or making your own opinions. The first amendment, by itself, makes no exception whatsoever to the principle. I find many problems with the expression "protected speech", but let's assume it's, from where do you extract what's a protected or what isn't, do you find it correct?
Not following you here Red. How does this relates to the definition of apology of crime, as this was the point of that paragraph.
Your concept of apologizing for a crime does not fit into the discussion. One can always apologize for their actions.
I took that as your personal opinion, maybe I was wrong.
If you call for violence - you are not protected under Freedom of Speech, the state reserves the right to insure the general welfare of the people.
Indeed one must understand it, even when I only made reference to a certain interpretation of it, of people who understand it. To me a well regulated militia could mean a lot of things, as a well regulated militia plus "to secure the freedom of the state", the following "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." only confuses me further. I'm making my own interpretation now, but I believe it's consistent with a protection provided to the people against the power of the state, not to protect it, maybe state was used the same as nation.
Again your missing the point of the 2nd Ammendment. Its a two part sentence - each part is related but independent of each other.
I'm not answering to you in regards to this particular case, only to what freedom of speech means, and particulary in the first amendment. The interpretation above (yours) does not surge from the text of the amendment itself, since it makes no exceptions, so I assume you're extracting it from other texts or making your own opinions. The first amendment, by itself, makes no exception whatsoever to the principle. I find many problems with the expression "protected speech", but let's assume it's, from where do you extract what's a protected or what isn't, do you find it correct?
Actually I take my opinion from studying the constitution and several case laws that show that Freedom of Speech does not allow for a call of violence nor does it protect you from civil responsiblity for your words. Protected speech is any speech that does not advocate violence is the base definition that I have learned from studying the consitution and most of the case law generated from the concept. Then there is the civil application of Freedom of Speech and personal responsiblity for one's own actions.
Major Robert Dump
04-23-2006, 06:32
Certain areas in public space during special events etc are deemed as being "free speech zones" in expectation of people exerting "free speech." Protestors or whoever are supposed to stay in these zones, although the zones may not be clearly marked or pointed out to people planning on using "free speech." If a police officer or valid security person tells you to shut up and move away, and you do not, you can be arrested for using "free speech" outside of the "free speech zone."
Had this happened in the White House press room, she would not have been arrested. Had this happened in the 12x12 "free speech zone" in a public park where the dignitaries were speaking, this would not have happened (the zone would have been over a hill and behind some trees, btw).
These laws usually expire after the event, unless we are talking about somewhere that is a parmanent fixture. For Example, the cameras can harass the congress on the Capital steps, but not inside the doors.
I'm not saying I like any of this, its just how it is. Some old lady was arrested at a Bush event a few years ago for leaving the "free speech zone" in a park or something. Hillary Clinton also used it quite liberally, in to changing the setup of the event so cameras would be pointed away from free speech zones if they were to focus on the event, she did it by narrowing the spots for cameras to be placed, a real zoning expert she. Don't know about presidents before them, wasn't paying attention
Banquo's Ghost
04-23-2006, 08:53
Interesting. So how does the government create a 'free speech zone'? Is it by presidential dictat, a bill in Congress or by application to local law enforcement?
How long can a 'free speech zone' last? Could one be imposed for months or years under, say, a state of emergency?
Have these zones been tested in the Supreme Court and found to be constitutional? Because they look like the thin end of the wedge.
My take: They were free to ask her to leave, and then forcibly remove her and charge her with tresspassing(or something similar) when she didnt comply. The charges listed seem like total nonsense.
She has a right to say what she wants- but they dont have to leave her stay on the Whitehouse lawn to do it.
Duke of Gloucester
04-23-2006, 11:13
She has a right to say what she wants- but they dont have to leave her stay on the Whitehouse lawn to do it.
That makes sense. You can say what you like, but you can't necessarily say it where and when you like. Or another way of looking at it: she can be arrested for disrupting a State visit, but not for what she actually said.
Avicenna
04-23-2006, 13:44
Free speech is nothing but an illusion. Does the law disallowing you from denying the Holocaust sound like free speech?
Banquo's Ghost
04-23-2006, 13:54
Free speech is nothing but an illusion. Does the law disallowing you from denying the Holocaust sound like free speech?
My, aren't we the cynic? As I'm sure you know, freedom brings responsibility. The essence of the thread is how far freedom to speak can be allowed to infringe on other's rights. Some countries have laws like the one you note, because they have concerns about the effects of peddling lies. AFAIK, the US has no such law.
If you think free speech is an illusion, you might want to try speaking your mind in Burma, N Korea, China and a hundred other countries that believe freedom is over-rated.
:dizzy2:
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.
The key word here is peaceably. No matter what kind of light you shine on what this lady said, calling for the downfall of the President of China is hardly peaceful.
There are political things to consider as well. Like it or not, the US needs good relations with China to avoid world war three. When this lady says "Your time is running out," and the US were to let her go, I doubt that Hu Jintao would think kindly toward the US.
Soulforged
04-23-2006, 18:22
Your concept of apologizing for a crime does not fit into the discussion. One can always apologize for their actions.And again I tell you: if overthrowing the government or advocating for such action is some sort of crime, then talking about how good will it be is making apology of crime. Or will you disagree with it's very definition? You're right, though, that it's not necessary for the discussion, so let's move on...
If you call for violence - you are not protected under Freedom of Speech, the state reserves the right to insure the general welfare of the people.Well, then this is your personal opinion then. How does the words of some nutjob or a true leader in the streets threatens the security of the "free state" or it's people?
Again your missing the point of the 2nd Ammendment. Its a two part sentence - each part is related but independent of each other. You said earlier that this was explained already. If it was in this forums then do you remember where? If it was in another place, I'm sure you know the best links to know it's "true meaning" and you can point me out. Beyond that, I strongly disagree with you, interpretation is not held to a group of words that someone considered to be the best meaning of it, my interpretation could be as good as anyone else, the same goes for any other interpretation.
Actually I take my opinion from studying the constitution and several case laws that show that Freedom of Speech does not allow for a call of violence nor does it protect you from civil responsiblity for your words. Protected speech is any speech that does not advocate violence is the base definition that I have learned from studying the consitution and most of the case law generated from the concept. Then there is the civil application of Freedom of Speech and personal responsiblity for one's own actions.That's exactly what I meant. Where's that case law? What do you mean by studying the Constitution (this could lead me to believe that you're making your own interpretation)? You see, and I repeat, the interpretation that you made of the 1st amendement cannot be extracted from it abstract for a certain context, I want to know what that context is.
And again I tell you: if overthrowing the government or advocating for such action is some sort of crime, then talking about how good will it be is making apology of crime. Or will you disagree with it's very definition? You're right, though, that it's not necessary for the discussion, so let's move on...
Apology for crime is not the same concept in which this thread is about. So yes you should move on.
Well, then this is your personal opinion then. How does the words of some nutjob or a true leader in the streets threatens the security of the "free state" or it's people?
Again its opinion based upon reading the constitution and following the case law concerning Free Speech in the United States. One can not advocate violence and then claim protection under the 1st Ammendment. You might want to check it out before continuing the discussion.
You said earlier that this was explained already. If it was in this forums then do you remember where? If it was in another place, I'm sure you know the best links to know it's "true meaning" and you can point me out. Beyond that, I strongly disagree with you, interpretation is not held to a group of words that someone considered to be the best meaning of it, my interpretation could be as good as anyone else, the same goes for any other interpretation.
Try reading some case law on the 2nd Ammendment, its been discussed in this forum before, and one can find it in several other sites - the 2nd Ammendment is a two part sentence. Each part is self sufficent on its own, but together has an express purpose.
That's exactly what I meant. Where's that case law? What do you mean by studying the Constitution (this could lead me to believe that you're making your own interpretation)? You see, and I repeat, the interpretation that you made of the 1st amendement cannot be extracted from it abstract for a certain context, I want to know what that context is.
Read some case law and you will find out. The first site using the term violent speech and the 1st Ammendment.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C
The research is rather easy - and alreadly written. I am feeling to lazy to educate you on a concept that has alreadly been established.
Soulforged
04-24-2006, 02:39
Again its opinion based upon reading the constitution and following the case law concerning Free Speech in the United States. One can not advocate violence and then claim protection under the 1st Ammendment. You might want to check it out before continuing the discussion.But...do you also share that opinion?
Try reading some case law on the 2nd Ammendment, its been discussed in this forum before, and one can find it in several other sites - the 2nd Ammendment is a two part sentence. Each part is self sufficent on its own, but together has an express purpose.Since you told me that, how do I get to the older threads? You know the ones that disappeared from the Backroom.
Read some case law and you will find out. The first site using the term violent speech and the 1st Ammendment.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C
The research is rather easy - and alreadly written. I am feeling to lazy to educate you on a concept that has alreadly been established.No need to do that, you've already been quite informative, thanks.:2thumbsup:
From the article:
"Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from England that was the basis of our American legal system." The Courts as usual take a more conservative position, instead of realist one, (many just desitions could be achieved if the Courts only forgot about texts and systems and started using common sense and common opinion) as follows:"How should we weigh the relative importance of these competing social values? How do we balance free speech against racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism which promotes values we despise as a country? against speech which some consider a symptom of the decay of society's traditional values? against speech which directly results in physical injury to another person?"
It establish the exceptions as they were determined by the Courts:
1-Defamation: No problem with this one. The case mentioned at the bottom (Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association, 745 F.Supp. 130 [S.D.N.Y. 1990]) and particulary this expression "reckless disregard for the truth" is used here too as a requirement for defamation.
2-Causing panic: Within the limits that the law stablishes it appears to be reasonable. Only considered within certain circumstances. The case of "The War of the Worlds" of Orson Wells is pretty well known here. However the things that cause panic change with time, thus this exception should change to keep it's pace.
3-"Fighting Words": This isn't so reasonable, but at least it's changing. The responsability should fall on the person who took the action.
4-Incitement to commit a crime: This expression appears to have a broader aplication that the one it has here. This is only acceptable, in my opinion, if one incites another to the commition of a concret criminal situation, not to murder, rape, etc. but to murder a certain person in a certain place, at a certain hour, or group of those factors, like murder a white, etc. To broad and you'll lose your place to talk violently.
5-Sedition(advocating sedition is not sedition!!): And here comes the important one. Again this one doesn't pass without controversy. It doesn't mention any special case on this one, so I suppose there isn't any. The question asked are interesting however, and I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't like Marx or any other literature to be prohibited. This is widely unreasonable to me, I don't accept it even on a minimum grade. But to keep a neutral stance here, let's suppose that in a document someone critics the government, and at the botton he advocates the violent overthrowing of it? Does that qualifies? Anyway, what this doesn't say is what penalty do you receive by making this kind of speech, I suppose this cannot pass from a fine, in fact in the show of Penn&Teller, they once did talk about the violent overthrowing of the government, as an american right, of course advocating it. Were they punished? As I said, though this is now considered to be "unprotected" speech, I think it's too much.
6-Obscenity: Beyond real pics of minors in sexual situations, I wouldn't accept this one, but it appears to be pretty strong there. None of the arguements offered in the article convince me of this one, it appears that some forced causal relationships, as in "fighting words", want to be found just to justify it's ban.
7-Offense: This is wider concept of offense. Unreasonable to me, people who are adults should learn to accept other opinions even when their only purpose is to offend them. Otherwise we'll end transforming non-issues into real issues. However it appears that the recent problem with the caricatures and the muslims, can give a good case to talk about this theory.
8-Establishment of religion: Again unreasonable, but it has been discussed already.
A quotation from John Stuart Mill:" . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." An state who calls itself liberal should respect this as the base of it's existence. The concept of sedition as an exception to freedom of speech goes far beyond it's boundaries.
Alexander the Pretty Good
04-24-2006, 02:41
The key word here is peaceably. No matter what kind of light you shine on what this lady said, calling for the downfall of the President of China is hardly peaceful.
There are political things to consider as well. Like it or not, the US needs good relations with China to avoid world war three. When this lady says "Your time is running out," and the US were to let her go, I doubt that Hu Jintao would think kindly toward the US.
I'm going to have to take issue with this. Firstly, "your time is running out" is hardly the threat you are making it out to be. Bush's "time is running out" - because we have term limits. All of our time is running out because we're human beings. It's much like saying that a political leader will lose his next election - well, in a fair election, he certainly could!
Second, letting a protestor go won't hurt relations too badly, I suspect. China has thousands of protests a year, so I would think they could understand one of ours. There won't be WWIII over a single protestor (at least not between US and China). If we never arrested her, she wouldn't be in the media at all - and Hu probably wouldn't ever hear of her.
BHCWarman88
04-24-2006, 03:13
The charge she is facing is
Free Speech means that the state can not prosecute you for your speech unless you are advocating violence against others or calling for the overthrow of the government through violence.
So one must review what did the individual state to the Chinese offical.
Now if her statements from the news article are correct
I don't see where the state has a case against her - unless there is more compiling evidence, it would seem to me that the government conducted the arrest at the time because of the embrassment to the Chinese Official being heckled at the White House.
What I don't know is if there is a law about heckling officals from foreign nations on the White House grounds. The government has in the past passed laws that limit some free speech within the confines of the place of business of the government. Remember several individuals were removed from the State of the Union Speech because they violated one of the rules of the house by wearing political statements on their shirts.
100% agreed..
But...do you also share that opinion?
Advocation of violence against others is consistent with wanting to deny them their civil rights.
Since you told me that, how do I get to the older threads? You know the ones that disappeared from the Backroom.
Ask a moderator - I normally use the search function - but it does not seem to bring up some threads.
No need to do that, you've already been quite informative, thanks.:2thumbsup:
From the article:
"Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from England that was the basis of our American legal system." The Courts as usual take a more conservative position, instead of realist one, (many just desitions could be achieved if the Courts only forgot about texts and systems and started using common sense and common opinion) as follows:"How should we weigh the relative importance of these competing social values? How do we balance free speech against racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism which promotes values we despise as a country? against speech which some consider a symptom of the decay of society's traditional values? against speech which directly results in physical injury to another person?"
It establish the exceptions as they were determined by the Courts:
1-Defamation: No problem with this one. The case mentioned at the bottom (Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association, 745 F.Supp. 130 [S.D.N.Y. 1990]) and particulary this expression "reckless disregard for the truth" is used here too as a requirement for defamation.
2-Causing panic: Within the limits that the law stablishes it appears to be reasonable. Only considered within certain circumstances. The case of "The War of the Worlds" of Orson Wells is pretty well known here. However the things that cause panic change with time, thus this exception should change to keep it's pace.
3-"Fighting Words": This isn't so reasonable, but at least it's changing. The responsability should fall on the person who took the action.
4-Incitement to commit a crime: This expression appears to have a broader aplication that the one it has here. This is only acceptable, in my opinion, if one incites another to the commition of a concret criminal situation, not to murder, rape, etc. but to murder a certain person in a certain place, at a certain hour, or group of those factors, like murder a white, etc. To broad and you'll lose your place to talk violently.
5-Sedition(advocating sedition is not sedition!!): And here comes the important one. Again this one doesn't pass without controversy. It doesn't mention any special case on this one, so I suppose there isn't any. The question asked are interesting however, and I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't like Marx or any other literature to be prohibited. This is widely unreasonable to me, I don't accept it even on a minimum grade. But to keep a neutral stance here, let's suppose that in a document someone critics the government, and at the botton he advocates the violent overthrowing of it? Does that qualifies? Anyway, what this doesn't say is what penalty do you receive by making this kind of speech, I suppose this cannot pass from a fine, in fact in the show of Penn&Teller, they once did talk about the violent overthrowing of the government, as an american right, of course advocating it. Were they punished? As I said, though this is now considered to be "unprotected" speech, I think it's too much.
6-Obscenity: Beyond real pics of minors in sexual situations, I wouldn't accept this one, but it appears to be pretty strong there. None of the arguements offered in the article convince me of this one, it appears that some forced causal relationships, as in "fighting words", want to be found just to justify it's ban.
7-Offense: This is wider concept of offense. Unreasonable to me, people who are adults should learn to accept other opinions even when their only purpose is to offend them. Otherwise we'll end transforming non-issues into real issues. However it appears that the recent problem with the caricatures and the muslims, can give a good case to talk about this theory.
8-Establishment of religion: Again unreasonable, but it has been discussed already.
A quotation from John Stuart Mill:" . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." An state who calls itself liberal should respect this as the base of it's existence. The concept of sedition as an exception to freedom of speech goes far beyond it's boundaries.
The John Stuart Mill quote is consistent with what I have been saying about Free Speech as it relates to the 1st Ammendment in the United States.
Soulforged
04-24-2006, 05:58
Advocation of violence against others is consistent with wanting to deny them their civil rights.Some times it's, sedition, however, is mostly about trying to regain those freedoms, occasionaly when your government believes it can do whatever they want. Now, how can you regain those freedoms if it's not by sedition.
The John Stuart Mill quote is consistent with what I have been saying about Free Speech as it relates to the 1st Ammendment in the United States.Not at all. Exceptions made by obscenity, sedition, offense and establishment of religion (though the latter has had other aplications and it's expressed on the 1st Amendement text) go far beyond that simple text of the 1st amendment, wich text appears to be limitative as it's written, and way far the idea of liberalism of Stuart Mill.
Believing that words are harmful, in some way, is believing in magic. The words by themselves mean little, that's why it's not sufficient to cause any effect. If it's accompanied by a true intention of sedition, then ask you this, what will you do if suddenly an act or bill is passed and you cannot write your ideas on the internet without been punished...Are you going to talk about sedition? Or are you going to accept it? Again, I understand your point that this is how the positive law is configured in your country, as that was the question of the initial poster. But what the Courts make are interpretations, at some point you should ask yourself if the ones that control your freedoms should be the ones sitted inside the "ivory towers" or you and the rest of the peasants. All this interpretations trace back to the Founding Fathers and their wishes, this kind of resource has been critizied many times because it's moot, it really doesn't mather what three or four (I don't know how many were them in the USA) thought 300 years or more in the past. What it matters is, how can we use it to extract the most just, and why not, liberal, resolution in any given case. So far there's some exceptions made that are not consistent with that idea, many of them anchored on archaic traditions alienated from an ever changing society and culture wich has grown up and doesn't believe in fantasies anymore, like "foul language", or maybe it does...
Some times it's, sedition, however, is mostly about trying to regain those freedoms, occasionaly when your government believes it can do whatever they want. Now, how can you regain those freedoms if it's not by sedition.
Violence is the term used - if one openly plans violence in the public setting the government can arrest them.
What your are failing to notice is that I am only talking about what the government is allowed to do by the constitution.
If the government has become oppressive to the point that the people are openly speaking of a violent overthrow - the government will act, and in doing so people will be more prone to sedition as their rights are futher eroded by the government.
The people have the right to be governed by the government that best serves their interests - however that means the government must serve the interests of the people. When the two come into conflict - the government will fail in the end.
Not at all. Exceptions made by obscenity, sedition, offense and establishment of religion (though the latter has had other aplications and it's expressed on the 1st Amendement text) go far beyond that simple text of the 1st amendment, wich text appears to be limitative as it's written, and way far the idea of liberalism of Stuart Mill.
Then you do not understand the nature of his quote. Look at it carefully and then look at the words that I use in regards to the 1st Ammendment - they are both consistent with each other.
the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
Mill is clearly stating that if one speaks of violence the government can rightfully exercise power over that persons will - if that control is to prevent harm to others. Advocating violence falls within the scope of which he speaks.
Believing that words are harmful, in some way, is believing in magic. The words by themselves mean little, that's why it's not sufficient to cause any effect. If it's accompanied by a true intention of sedition, then ask you this, what will you do if suddenly an act or bill is passed and you cannot write your ideas on the internet without been punished...Are you going to talk about sedition? Or are you going to accept it? Again, I understand your point that this is how the positive law is configured in your country, as that was the question of the initial poster. But what the Courts make are interpretations, at some point you should ask yourself if the ones that control your freedoms should be the ones sitted inside the "ivory towers" or you and the rest of the peasants.
Your speaking of several different things - all outside of the orginial aspect of the question. In the United States if the speech is determined to be advocating violence towards others the government has the obligation to prevent the speech and the violence.
If one disagrees with the law - one takes action consistent with peaceful protest against that law. If one feels violence is the only resort left - then one must understand that the govenment will disagree with their postion. This is where the 2nd Ammendment comes in play.
However it does not prevent the government from arresting individuals for sedition.
Your forgetting a part of the Constitution that also tie into the concept of free speech.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
And finally -
All this interpretations trace back to the Founding Fathers and their wishes, this kind of resource has been critizied many times because it's moot, it really doesn't mather what three or four (I don't know how many were them in the USA) thought 300 years or more in the past. What it matters is, how can we use it to extract the most just, and why not, liberal, resolution in any given case. So far there's some exceptions made that are not consistent with that idea, many of them anchored on archaic traditions alienated from an ever changing society and culture wich has grown up and doesn't believe in fantasies anymore, like "foul language", or maybe it does...
You miss the point of constitutional discussions and have resorted to a rant. No point going futher with the discussion when comments such as this come into being.
Soulforged
04-25-2006, 00:28
What your are failing to notice is that I am only talking about what the government is allowed to do by the constitution.Yes I lost sight of the point of this thread at the start, but I understand it now. As I putted in words this:"Again, I understand your point that this is how the positive law is configured in your country, as that was the question of the initial poster" in my last post. Clearly I'm trying to go beyond the initial point, perhaps trying to find a meaning to that little sentence.
Then you do not understand the nature of his quote. Look at it carefully and then look at the words that I use in regards to the 1st Ammendment - they are both consistent with each other.I still find inconsistence...
Mill is clearly stating that if one speaks of violence the government can rightfully exercise power over that persons will - if that control is to prevent harm to others. Advocating violence falls within the scope of which he speaks.Yes. The problem is that an speech, whatever it contains, causes no harm. As in the case of "fighting words" or the classical case of drugs and crime, the causal relationships are mostly forced to find a justification to remove it's protection or ban it. The only possible violence, is the violence of action or omission, everything else is, as I said, believing in magic. If you believe in the responsability of adult people in a society then you must agree with me.
Your speaking of several different things - all outside of the orginial aspect of the question.Well, that's my point. If we had stayed on the issue this discussion would have been over by now.
In the United States if the speech is determined to be advocating violence towards others the government has the obligation to prevent the speech and the violence.I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying that such interpretation is not the only one that surges from the words of the 1st Amendment by itself. The part about "peacefully..." doesn't exclude a possible "violently..." given certain circumstances that are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution or the people that it represents.
If one disagrees with the law - one takes action consistent with peaceful protest against that law. If one feels violence is the only resort left - then one must understand that the govenment will disagree with their postion. This is where the 2nd Ammendment comes in play. This is the answer that I've been looking since I first asked. So what you're saying is that the 1st Amendment gives you no right whatsoever to advocate sedition, or violence if you will (I don't know another kind of sedition), but the 2nd Amendment does gives you the right to engage in sedition, given certain circumstances. Is that right?
However it does not prevent the government from arresting individuals for sedition.Certainly not, but it would not be the right thing for the government to arrest people for sedition when they're responsable for it.
You miss the point of constitutional discussions and have resorted to a rant. No point going futher with the discussion when comments such as this come into being.Not a rant, just an opinion. I don't know what part of that opinion you didn't like, but I'll like to know, I don't see any signs of rant there. And the point of constitutional discussions being...
Yes I lost sight of the point of this thread at the start, but I understand it now. As I putted in words this:"Again, I understand your point that this is how the positive law is configured in your country, as that was the question of the initial poster" in my last post. Clearly I'm trying to go beyond the initial point, perhaps trying to find a meaning to that little sentence.
The meaning of the sentence is quite clear to me.
I still find inconsistence...
Then you should ponder the subject and what has been stated for a while longer.
Yes. The problem is that an speech, whatever it contains, causes no harm.
In this you are incorrect. A whole group of American's were subject to abuse based purely off of a few words.
As in the case of "fighting words" or the classical case of drugs and crime, the causal relationships are mostly forced to find a justification to remove it's protection or ban it. The only possible violence, is the violence of action or omission, everything else is, as I said, believing in magic.
Not at all.
If you believe in the responsability of adult people in a society then you must agree with me.
If you believe in responsiblity then you must agree that words do indeed have power. That irresponsible use such as the advocating of violence against a group of people based upon race is an irresponsible act.
Well, that's my point. If we had stayed on the issue this discussion would have been over by now.
Not at all - the 1st Ammendment and Freedom of Speech is great subject for discussion.
I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying that such interpretation is not the only one that surges from the words of the 1st Amendment by itself. The part about "peacefully..." doesn't exclude a possible "violently..." given certain circumstances that are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution or the people that it represents.
Then you clearly have misunderstood what has been written. Review again the responsiblities of the government and the rights of the people as it regards freedom of speech.
This is the answer that I've been looking since I first asked. So what you're saying is that the 1st Amendment gives you no right whatsoever to advocate sedition, or violence if you will (I don't know another kind of sedition), but the 2nd Amendment does gives you the right to engage in sedition, given certain circumstances. Is that right?
The 2nd ammendment give people the right to own and bear arms to insure the security of the free state. The right to sedition does not exist.
Certainly not, but it would not be the right thing for the government to arrest people for sedition when they're responsable for it.
That is for the people to decide, by popular uprising against the government.
Not a rant, just an opinion. I don't know what part of that opinion you didn't like, but I'll like to know, I don't see any signs of rant there. And the point of constitutional discussions being...
Oh the language used is consistent with rants against something - not for a discussion - therefor not worthy of discussing.
Soulforged
04-26-2006, 05:04
The meaning of the sentence is quite clear to me.The meaning of a legal text is never clear...
Then you should ponder the subject and what has been stated for a while longer.The exceptions to your 1st Amendment had been held for a while too, by the courts and part of the doctrine, I'm only doing another interpretation, perhaps some americans agree with me.
Not at all. You say that there's violence in words? Well then I hereby advocate the violent overthrowing of USA government. To arms!!!
If you believe in responsiblity then you must agree that words do indeed have power. That irresponsible use such as the advocating of violence against a group of people based upon race is an irresponsible act.The question is not if the words have a certain power, and if they can influence a certain group of people given certain circumstances, the question is if that always happens, as a causal relationship. Otherwise there's no reason to ban certain speech, is only an irrational desicion of a Court or the legislative power, as many others of the kind.
Not at all - the 1st Ammendment and Freedom of Speech is great subject for discussion.That's what I say...
Then you clearly have misunderstood what has been written. Review again the responsiblities of the government and the rights of the people as it regards freedom of speech.And all that comes from the 1st Amendment? I'm not saying that it's wrong to introduce other parts of the Constitution or Court rulings to help in interpretation, but I only pointed that little fact.
The 2nd ammendment give people the right to own and bear arms to insure the security of the free state. The right to sedition does not exist.I see. So the right is only applicable when in an hypotetical situation the USA are threatened by an external menace. That's only reassuring the sovreingnity of the state of the USA, and nothing more. Right?
That is for the people to decide, by popular uprising against the government.Exactly.
The meaning of a legal text is never clear...
Then one should study the text more.
The exceptions to your 1st Amendment had been held for a while too, by the courts and part of the doctrine, I'm only doing another interpretation, perhaps some americans agree with me.
Your interpretation is incorrect and inconsistent with the text.
You say that there's violence in words? Well then I hereby advocate the violent overthrowing of USA government. To arms!!!
You can - since your not a US citizen - so your point here is mote. If you don't understand that there is harm and violence in words - then maybe you should review history a touch more.
The question is not if the words have a certain power, and if they can influence a certain group of people given certain circumstances, the question is if that always happens, as a causal relationship. Otherwise there's no reason to ban certain speech, is only an irrational desicion of a Court or the legislative power, as many others of the kind.
Again review history - words have power.
That's what I say...
Going back on what you initially stated now are you?
And all that comes from the 1st Amendment? I'm not saying that it's wrong to introduce other parts of the Constitution or Court rulings to help in interpretation, but I only pointed that little fact.
The 1st Ammendment is part of the constitution - hence other parts of the constitution are relative to any discussion concerning how the 1st Ammendment applies to the text of the constitution.
I see. So the right is only applicable when in an hypotetical situation the USA are threatened by an external menace. That's only reassuring the sovreingnity of the state of the USA, and nothing more. Right?
You don't see. Try reading the text again. It clearly mentions internal threat also.
Exactly.
But from what you have written - you don't understand the nature of the 2nd Ammendment and how it relates to the constitution and to the rights of the people.
I see. So the right is only applicable when in an hypotetical situation the USA are threatened by an external menace. That's only reassuring the sovreingnity of the state of the USA, and nothing more. Right?
Exactly.
No, I think you are confused. You are putting the cart before the horse. The right to bear arms is to ENSURE that our other rights, such as the first amendment are not violated, by outside powers or domestic.
So while under the first amendment you do not have the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, if one day that government became so tyranical that it began to ignore, or reverse that right and others, it would be our right, and duty, to overthrow that government and restore one of, by, and for the people.
I can see where on the outside it might not make sense, but to Americans it does.
You have freedom to speak your mind up to the point where your freedom begins to take away someone else's. So you can't walk into a theatre and shout fire and cause a stampeed that causes people to be killed. You can't go into someone's private property and refuse to leave. You can't ask someone to murder someone etc. All the 2nd amendment does is make sure that if a government were corrupt, they would not be able to assume absolute power (I believe one of Hitler's first acts was to disarm his population).
So if tommorow Bush announced he was president for life, and the congress decided that sounds like a good idea, and the courts were powerless to do anything about it, then the only option left would be to submit or take up arms.
Haudegen
04-26-2006, 18:46
I can see where on the outside it might not make sense, but to Americans it does.
I think I got the idea now. This reminds me a bit of Article 20 IV of the German constitution.
Article 20 (IV) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible.
That means: The people have the right for violent resistance only in the case when the constitution is practically out of effect. However if the constitution is out of effect, how can the people then justify their violent action on the basis of the constitution?
Therefore most legal experts agree that Article 20 IV is somewhat pointless. But generally it shows the natural limitations for any law, which is IMHO interesting in theory.
The idea of the 2nd amendment seems to aim at the same situation. But the notable difference is that it allows the people to prepare for such a situation by stockpiling guns.
If the scope of the 2nd amendment is aimed at a situation where the constitution is out of effect, then it´s sound that it is not possible to advocate the violent removal of the government under the protection of the 1st amendment because as long as the 1st amendment (and the rest of the constitution) is in effect a removal of the government is not necessary.
If the scope of the 2nd amendment is aimed at a situation where the constitution is out of effect, then it´s sound that it is not possible to advocate the violent removal of the government under the protection of the 1st amendment because as long as the 1st amendment (and the rest of the constitution) is in effect a removal of the government is not necessary.
The 2nd Ammendment is not aimed at a situation where the constitution is out of effect.
However I think the second part of the sentence is spot on.
Haudegen
04-26-2006, 19:13
The 2nd Ammendment is not aimed at a situation where the constitution is out of effect.
The 2nd Ammendment certainly has practical effects in times where the constitution is in effect. You have the right to bear arms.
But the idea of it is IMHO a situation where the constitution is out of effect. If the US founding fathers had known for sure that the constitutional order could never be in danger in the future, then they wouldn´t have made the 2nd Ammendment.
Therefore I think it´s okay to say it is aimed at a situation where constitution is out of effect. It´s a kind of safeguard for such situations.
True, but it's not so much for a situation where "the constitution is not in effect" but a situation where a person tries to take away your rights that are declared in the constitution. I believe the rights declared in the constitution are always in effect from the moment we are born to the moment we die.
So even if we had the most despotic regime imaginable in power, the constitution would still be there. I agree that if they knew the constitution would always be respected there would be no need for a 2nd amendment (to a point, they also intended it to be for situations of self defense) but you can really say that about anything. If they knew for certain we would never have a government or leader try to take away our right to assemble, they wouldn't have needed to put it in the constitution would they?
Haudegen
04-26-2006, 20:30
True, but it's not so much for a situation where "the constitution is not in effect" but a situation where a person tries to take away your rights that are declared in the constitution.
Hmm, if your neighbour tells you that you shouldn´t believe in the religion of your choice in a harassing way. Who are you going to call? Your arms dealer or your lawyer? ~;) I think the protection of individual rights against other individuals is first of all a matter where you can count on the force of the state.
I believe the rights declared in the constitution are always in effect from the moment we are born to the moment we die.
So even if we had the most despotic regime imaginable in power, the constitution would still be there.
Laws are pure fiction unless they are executed. If the this despotic regime didn´t care to repeal the constitution but simply ignores it, what´s the point in having a constitution then?
I agree that if they knew the constitution would always be respected there would be no need for a 2nd amendment (to a point, they also intended it to be for situations of self defense) but you can really say that about anything. If they knew for certain we would never have a government or leader try to take away our right to assemble, they wouldn't have needed to put it in the constitution would they?
I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own.
But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.
The 2nd Ammendment certainly has practical effects in times where the constitution is in effect. You have the right to bear arms.
In this you are correct.
But the idea of it is IMHO a situation where the constitution is out of effect. If the US founding fathers had known for sure that the constitutional order could never be in danger in the future, then they wouldn´t have made the 2nd Ammendment.
In this you are incorrect. Study the reasons behind the consitution and the inclusion of the 2nd Ammendment into the document. It will provide greater insight into why the ammendment was added.
An starting point is to realize the circumstances and situations of the time, and what the men who wrote the consitution believed in.
Therefore I think it´s okay to say it is aimed at a situation where constitution is out of effect. It´s a kind of safeguard for such situations.
That is only one of the several reasons that the ammendment was included.
Hmm, if your neighbour tells you that you shouldn´t believe in the religion of your choice in a harassing way. Who are you going to call? Your arms dealer or your lawyer? ~;) I think the protection of individual rights against other individuals is first of all a matter where you can count on the force of the state.
That is where it begins. But the scenerio you paint here is not the only one that people face.
Laws are pure fiction unless they are executed. If the this despotic regime didn´t care to repeal the constitution but simply ignores it, what´s the point in having a constitution then?
Ask yourself why? Its rather a simple question to answer. The people allow the government to exist. The constitution is not just a governing document for how the government is to function - it is the contract between the people and the government.
I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own.
In this you are missing the idea behind the 2nd Ammendment in particuler, and in the other ammendments in general.
But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.
Incorrect - one always has the right to defend the constitution regardless if there are tyrants in office or simpletons. Rights don't work in the context of "normal" and "circumstance" - rights exist as rights or not at all.
Haudegen
04-26-2006, 21:23
Ask yourself why? Its rather a simple question to answer. The people allow the government to exist. The constitution is not just a governing document for how the government is to function - it is the contract between the people and the government.
Of course, Redleg. But in the scenario that Joker describes the government obviously refuses to comply with the contract. What´s the point in having a constitution then?
In this you are missing the idea behind the 2nd Ammendment in particuler, and in the other ammendments in general.
Could you eleborate a bit more on this?
Incorrect - one always has the right to defend the constitution regardless if there are tyrants in office or simpletons. Rights don't work in the context of "normal" and "circumstance" - rights exist as rights or not at all.
The right to defend the constitution is course always there. We are talking about defending the constitution with violent measures. I think we agree that you can´t defend it in any situation violently.
Of course, Redleg. But in the scenario that Joker describes the government obviously refuses to comply with the contract. What´s the point in having a constitution then?
Ask yourself this question, How does one justify a repellion against a domocratic state?
Could you eleborate a bit more on this?
All 10 ammendments known as the "Bill of Rights" serve a purpose.
The right to defend the constitution is course always there. We are talking about defending the constitution with violent measures. I think we agree that you can´t defend it in any situation violently.
The right exists regardless - that is the point.
Haudegen
04-26-2006, 22:03
Ask yourself this question, How does one justify a repellion against a domocratic state?
Are you calling the hypothetical regime that Joker described, democratic?
All 10 ammendments known as the "Bill of Rights" serve a purpose.
Again: My initial statement was this:
I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own. But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.
In other words:
I say that the rights of the first kind are primary because they make our lives as civilians in peaceful times worthwhile.
The right to defend other rights requires the existence of before mentioned other rights.
Whats wrong? Where in detail is this, in your opinion, incompatible with the Bill of Rights?
Are you calling the hypothetical regime that Joker described, democratic?
Nope, giving you a leading question so that you can answer your own question.
Again: My initial statement was this:
I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own. But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.
Again you miss the point of the first 10 ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. All the rights mentioned in those 10 ammendments are rights - or as your trying to allude to "normal." If you deny one of the ammendments that define the rights of the citizens - then you will deny other's as you decide what is right and wrong in your attempt to define the rights as "normal" or circumstancial.
For instance in this discussion the speech that gets individuals in trouble with the state is one that advocates sedition (violent overthrow of the government, also known as insurrection) is mentioned in the text of the Constitution - other types of speech that have been defined by the courts as violating the rights of others, is deemed unprotected speech and the state can prosecute the individual. This is how the process works to define rights and to limit the scope of what constitutes the right or not.
Now while the Judicial Branch has narrowed the scope somewhat of what Freedom of Speech means - they have done so within the scope of their constitutional authority (for the most part), the legislative branch has also done the same thing by adding additional ammendments to the constitution, and by making legislative laws. This is all consistent with the democratic process as envisioned in the constitution.
A basic concept of rights that I have mentioned before.
Rights - require responsiblity. If one is unwilling to accept responsiblity one does not need rights.
I say that the rights of the first kind are primary because they make our lives as civilians in peaceful times worthwhile.
All 10 ammendments in what is called the Bill of Rights serve that function.
The right to defend other rights requires the existence of before mentioned other rights.
Its concurrent with. This is where you are missing the main point of the Bill of Rights and the intent of the Constitution.
Whats wrong? Where in detail is this, in your opinion, incompatible with the Bill of Rights?
Alreadly noted.
Haudegen
04-26-2006, 23:19
Nope, giving you a leading question so that you can answer your own question.
I see, thanks.
Again you miss the point of the first 10 ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. All the rights mentioned in those 10 ammendments are rights - or as your trying to allude to "normal." If you deny one of the ammendments that define the rights of the citizens - then you will deny other's as you decide what is right and wrong in your attempt to define the rights as "normal" or circumstancial.
It´s far from me to deny any single word in the Bill of Rights. I was just stating that the right to defend the constitution requires the existence of a constitution. IMHO that´s just a logical conclusion.
For instance in this discussion the speech that gets individuals in trouble with the state is one that advocates sedition (violent overthrow of the government, also known as insurrection) is mentioned in the text of the Constitution - other types of speech that have been defined by the courts as violating the rights of others, is deemed unprotected speech and the state can prosecute the individual. This is how the process works to define rights and to limit the scope of what constitutes the right or not.
I think we already agreed on this some hours ago.
Its concurrent with. This is where you are missing the main point of the Bill of Rights and the intent of the Constitution.
It is concurrent but it could not exist alone. The other rights, in theory, could exist alone. That´s simply a structural difference between the categories I made. It has nothing to do with the question which right in which case should be valued higher than another one.
It´s far from me to deny any single word in the Bill of Rights. I was just stating that the right to defend the constitution requires the existence of a constitution. IMHO that´s just a logical conclusion.
Again your missing the main point. Rights in the United States would not exist without the constitution. All rights in the United States stem from the constitution.
I think we already agreed on this some hours ago.
In part, however you keep returning to "normal" and circumstancial rights in your arguement. A right exists or it does not.
It is concurrent but it could not exist alone. The other rights, in theory, could exist alone. That´s simply a structural difference between the categories I made. It has nothing to do with the question which right in which case should be valued higher than another one.
All rights in the United States stem from the constitution. If one could not exist alone, all could not exist alone. Any of the current constitutional granted rights could be revoke by the constitutional process.
The arguement that you are attempting here is not one of constitutional rights in the United States but one of a different, but equal concept, that of inherient rights of man.
Even under that concept of rights man has the right to defend himself. So I find fault still with your arguement.
Haudegen
04-27-2006, 00:28
Again your missing the main point. Rights in the United States would not exist without the constitution. All rights in the United States stem from the constitution.
Such is the nature of any constitution on earth. Why is this the main point in this debate?
All rights in the United States stem from the constitution. If one could not exist alone, all could not exist alone.
No. Just to give an example: Some parts of your constitution are older than other parts. Of course they could in theory exist alone.
You should differentiate between the parts of the constistution that set rules for the organisation of the state and that part that sets the human rights.
The arguement that you are attempting here is not one of constitutional rights in the United States but one of a different, but equal concept, that of inherient rights of man.
No. It´s only applied logic. I think the legal experts in the USA are applying logic in their argumentation, too. But please correct me if I´m wrong here.
Soulforged
04-27-2006, 00:31
Then one should study the text more.No. All text vary in their meaning when the context changes. Beyond that the text is constructed from the natural language (i.e. english, spanish, etc.) and this language is always at least potencially vague, so as a deduction all texts are vague, even more legal texts.
Your interpretation is incorrect and inconsistent with the text.So says Redleg.
You can - since your not a US citizen - so your point here is mote. If you don't understand that there is harm and violence in words - then maybe you should review history a touch more.That version of history is based upon the same line of thought that you advocate. Even if you're right, violence in words is not enough to justify it's ban.
Again review history - words have power.My example above should demonstrate you that that's not correct. If words by themselves had power, the necessary power to be a cause, then you and other americans should be in sedition right now. That's what I meant.
Going back on what you initially stated now are you?What are you talking about Red? Did you lost track of the discussion or something. If I want to discuss the 1st Amendment I want to discuss the 1st Amendement. Is there a problem with your logic?
The 1st Ammendment is part of the constitution - hence other parts of the constitution are relative to any discussion concerning how the 1st Ammendment applies to the text of the constitution.That's correct. And since I've said already that by itself the 1st Amendment says nothing of that kind, then go forward and present me another text, in the Constitution, that fobids the advocation of sedition. I've been reading it, so I'm pretty sure there isn't any, but let's try it.
You don't see. Try reading the text again. It clearly mentions internal threat also.I was trying to point another thing. The point is that is only to assure it's sovereingty over it's territory.
But from what you have written - you don't understand the nature of the 2nd Ammendment and how it relates to the constitution and to the rights of the people.That's right. I'm only making questions and trying to guess what it means. As I said in the start, I heard this interpretation from some guy....that's it, and I'm talking about guy informed on the content of the american Constitution.
So while under the first amendment you do not have the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, if one day that government became so tyranical that it began to ignore, or reverse that right and others, it would be our right, and duty, to overthrow that government and restore one of, by, and for the people.Joker, go back to my first post, and you'll see why am I here now. I'm trying to clear up my doubst in regards to some apparent contradiction between the interpretation that the american courts make of the 1st Amendment, specially the "sedition" exception, and what you've said of the 2nd Amendment. Thus again, one tells you that you cannot advocate violence, the second says that you can. That's always using a certain interpretation of both.
Such is the nature of any constitution on earth. Why is this the main point in this debate?
It might have something to do with the title of the thread. What does the First Ammendment mean? Hince the discussion was alreadly centered around that document and how it applies to the United States.
No. Just to give an example: Some parts of your constitution are older than other parts. Of course they could in theory exist alone.
Incorrect the text of the constitution has been maintained - the new parts are all ammendments.
You should differentiate between the parts of the constistution that set rules for the organisation of the state and that part that sets the human rights.
Its done - all one has to do is read the document to see it. The main body establishes the rules of the government. The first 10 ammendments set up the rights for the citizens of the nation. The remaining ammendments make futher adjustments to the constitution or address issues concerning rights that were not clearly defined. ie voting being one of them.
No. It´s only applied logic. I think the legal experts in the USA are applying logic in their argumentation, too. But please correct me if I´m wrong here.
Not a lawyer only a student of the constitution.
However you have intermix the concept knows as the "rights of man" within this discussion about what the United States Constitution states in the "Bill of Rights." In discussing rights in the court room - from the documents I have read - the lawyers often refer to the Constitution as the basis of their arguement.
Both concepts are relative to each other - and come from the same time period. Both allow for the defense of self as being a fundmental right of man.
No. All text vary in their meaning when the context changes. Beyond that the text is constructed from the natural language (i.e. english, spanish, etc.) and this language is always at least potencially vague, so as a deduction all texts are vague, even more legal texts.
The text of the constitution is clear, your response here is one of interpation by those who only use pieces and parts.
So says Redleg.
Tsk Tsk - again your arguement is inconsistent. Your interpation of the constitution is incorrect.
That version of history is based upon the same line of thought that you advocate. Even if you're right, violence in words is not enough to justify it's ban.
So you believe in a revised version of history? Interesting.. :inquisitive:
My example above should demonstrate you that that's not correct. If words by themselves had power, the necessary power to be a cause, then you and other americans should be in sedition right now. That's what I meant.
You believe we should be in sedition - however that is not the case. We have protests against the government concerning thier actions - all which is allowed under the 1st Ammendment.
What are you talking about Red?
Your statement was inconsistent with your previous arguement.
Did you lost track of the discussion or something. If I want to discuss the 1st Amendment I want to discuss the 1st Amendement. Is there a problem with your logic?
Not at all - however are you have a problem with yours?
That's correct. And since I've said already that by itself the 1st Amendment says nothing of that kind, then go forward and present me another text, in the Constitution, that fobids the advocation of sedition. I've been reading it, so I'm pretty sure there isn't any, but let's try it.
Try reading an earlier post - you will find this quote
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Try reading up on the Wiskey Rebellion also.
I was trying to point another thing. The point is that is only to assure it's sovereingty over it's territory.
That is what all nations do. Never stated otherwise.
That's right. I'm only making questions and trying to guess what it means. As I said in the start, I heard this interpretation from some guy....that's it, and I'm talking about guy informed on the content of the american Constitution.
However your seemly stuck on the same incorrect interpretation as before.
Thus again, one tells you that you cannot advocate violence, the second says that you can.
It's been explained to you why that is not the case. There is nothing else that can be done. You have every right to disagree with the explanation offered, but it works for Americans and our courts, and that's all that matters.
Soulforged
04-27-2006, 04:59
The text of the constitution is clear, your response here is one of interpation by those who only use pieces and parts.I can give you a little course on interpretation, but I'll not. Just for reference there's what is called "literal meaning", whatever that is, and there's other kinds of interpretations, all valids.
Tsk Tsk - again your arguement is inconsistent. Your interpation of the constitution is incorrect.But you say it. Right?
So you believe in a revised version of history? Interesting..Not what I said Red. If we look at history, and you give an example in wich words preceded some event, the relationship between the first and the last is arbitrarilly atributted by you or the historian who did so (or perhaps is just heterodox use of language).
You believe we should be in sedition - however that is not the case. We have protests against the government concerning thier actions - all which is allowed under the 1st Ammendment.I don't believe you should be in sedition. What I'm saying, and now taking a moral stance, is that you should have the right to advocate sedition. As you said it's on the american people to join you or not, if they're faring well then they'll probably do nothing.
Your statement was inconsistent with your previous arguement.In wich part of this whole discussion did I said explicitly or implicitly that I didn't want to discuss the 1st Amendement?
Try reading an earlier post - you will find this quoteSo that quote means to you that one exception can be made to the 1st Amendment?
Try reading up on the Wiskey Rebellion also.Interesting history...Does your country has a principle that sets taxes as the parameter for equality for all citizens? On subject, still this adds nothing new, it gives the same prudential reasons that you gave me previously to not engage in sedition, i.e. the state will repell you. Still this event generates another doubt. The rebellion happened after three years of enduring the effects of such law. Are you telling me that this people should endure for such a long period of time this conditions, by peacefully protesting? Another interesting thing, is that the law became unenforceable in 1780, six years after the start of the rebellion. Had the rebellion not taken place, how many more years this conditions would have lasted?
That is what all nations do. Never stated otherwise.Ok, then.
However your seemly stuck on the same incorrect interpretation as before.Only because I haven't heard a single arguement wich changed my mind.
It's been explained to you why that is not the case. There is nothing else that can be done. You have every right to disagree with the explanation offered, but it works for Americans and our courts, and that's all that matters.No it hasn't. Your post even reassured me on the road. See:"So while under the first amendment you do not have the right to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, if one day that government became so tyranical that it began to ignore, or reverse that right and others, it would be our right, and duty, to overthrow that government and restore one of, by, and for the people." The question is still in place. If this is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then what's stoping me from finding a contradiction with the interpretation that courts do of the 1st Amendment. Beyond that, I never said it wasn't working, and it's find by me, this discussion is only important to me, because I like to see different interpretations and their results in the world.
I can give you a little course on interpretation, but I'll not. Just for reference there's what is called "literal meaning", whatever that is, and there's other kinds of interpretations, all valids.
No need - I image I know as much about interpretation as the next person. SOme interpretations are not valid, when they take the meaning of the document beyond its orginial context.
But you say it. Right?
And in doing so - I have shown where you are incorrect.
Not what I said Red. If we look at history, and you give an example in wich words preceded some event, the relationship between the first and the last is arbitrarilly atributted by you or the historian who did so (or perhaps is just heterodox use of language).
Try explaining some of history where the initial aspect of the event was an exchange of words. Or the reaction to the statements made. So the arbitrarilly design is one not of anyone's imagination. Since this site is dedicated to totalwar games - care to guess how many wars are the result of insults (words) and the call to kill the unbeliver?
I don't believe you should be in sedition. What I'm saying, and now taking a moral stance, is that you should have the right to advocate sedition. As you said it's on the american people to join you or not, if they're faring well then they'll probably do nothing.
Sedition is not a right.
In wich part of this whole discussion did I said explicitly or implicitly that I didn't want to discuss the 1st Amendement?
That is not what the statement was refering to.
So that quote means to you that one exception can be made to the 1st Amendment?
Its not an exception to the 1st Ammendment. The text of the constitution comes before the ammendments. The 1st Ammendment does not release the National government from upholding its responsiblities to preserve the Union.
Try reading up on the Wiskey Rebellion also.
I see you don't have a response for the Whiskey Rebellion. It covers certain aspects of this discussion with a case history.
Ok, then.
:book:
Only because I haven't heard a single arguement wich changed my mind.
When one is stuck on the incorrect understanding of what the document states and the meaning inherient in the document as it is written - then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Your focusing on sedition when the main document states that the government shall defend itself against such acts, to the point that you have seemly ignored the text of the orginial document.
The discussion is not how Freedom of Speech is applied to other nations - but how it is applied in the United States. Which means one must understand the scope of the constitution as a whole and the ammendments in spefic.
Soulforged
04-28-2006, 00:25
No need - I image I know as much about interpretation as the next person. SOme interpretations are not valid, when they take the meaning of the document beyond its orginial context. Interpretation: Giving meaning to a word or sentence.
And in doing so - I have shown where you are incorrect.OKA.
Try explaining some of history where the initial aspect of the event was an exchange of words. Or the reaction to the statements made. So the arbitrarilly design is one not of anyone's imagination. Since this site is dedicated to totalwar games - care to guess how many wars are the result of insults (words) and the call to kill the unbeliver?Those are complex events. But go ahead, you give me any example in wich wars, or any other dramatic event, started just by exchaging words and ideas.
Sedition is not a right.Perhaps not, but that's not what someone says about the 2nd Amendment. In regards to the 1st one, well I talked about advocating sedition, not sedition itself. Again you're atributing magic to the words.
That is not what the statement was refering to.No. The topic was specifically to ask americans about the configuration of the actual positive law of the country built over the basis of the 1st Amendment (i.e. what the doctrine and the courts state about it). I'm trying to find another meaning to it, and see if it's reasonable, and my initial question was something different, a comparision between the 1st and the 2nd.
Its not an exception to the 1st Ammendment. The text of the constitution comes before the ammendments. The 1st Ammendment does not release the National government from upholding its responsiblities to preserve the Union.You think that the right to call the militia to go against threats talks about what you can say or not?
I see you don't have a response for the Whiskey Rebellion. It covers certain aspects of this discussion with a case history.I actually did. Or are we in different dimensions?:inquisitive:
When one is stuck on the incorrect understanding of what the document states and the meaning inherient in the document as it is written - then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Your focusing on sedition when the main document states that the government shall defend itself against such acts, to the point that you have seemly ignored the text of the orginial document.Compare this vs. what I've stated and what Joker85 stated, and you'll see some problems with that, problems that I've too.
The discussion is not how Freedom of Speech is applied to other nations - but how it is applied in the United States. Which means one must understand the scope of the constitution as a whole and the ammendments in spefic.Exactly, that was the initial issue. If this was the only think to be discussed then the topic should be over by now, you gave a wonderful explanation of that, I'm thinking outside the box.
Interpretation: Giving meaning to a word or sentence.
LOL - you missed the point once again.
Those are complex events. But go ahead, you give me any example in wich wars, or any other dramatic event, started just by exchaging words and ideas.
The issue at hand is that you stated words have no power. That is incorrect. The cruscades is a good examble of how words were used to justify greed of one or two people. War Propaganda is another fine examble. Then tribal warfare and blood fueds of old were often over just words.
Perhaps not, but that's not what someone says about the 2nd Amendment.
In regards to the 1st one, well I talked about advocating sedition, not sedition itself. Again you're atributing magic to the words.
So the term Freedom is pure magic? Hmm interesting.....:juggle2:
No. The topic was specifically to ask americans about the configuration of the actual positive law of the country built over the basis of the 1st Amendment (i.e. what the doctrine and the courts state about it). I'm trying to find another meaning to it, and see if it's reasonable, and my initial question was something different, a comparision between the 1st and the 2nd.
And you have your answer which you refuse to acknowledge.
You think that the right to call the militia to go against threats talks about what you can say or not?
Someone is not paying attention.
I actually did. Or are we in different dimensions?:inquisitive:
Well since someone is not paying attention ---- :juggle2:
Compare this vs. what I've stated and what Joker85 stated, and you'll see some problems with that, problems that I've too.
Done before I wrote that sentence.
Exactly, that was the initial issue. If this was the only think to be discussed then the topic should be over by now, you gave a wonderful explanation of that, I'm thinking outside the box.
The problem is that your mixing up the concepts and the ideas. Your not thinking outside of the box - your doing something else.
Soulforged
04-29-2006, 00:56
Kind note to Redleg: Whenever I find a response like "go back to other post", "read the sentence again", "you missed the point", etc. I'll only post an smile or a simple GAH! Since I'm obfuscated and doing otherwise would be running un circles. Thank you.
LOL - you missed the point once again.
:laugh4:
The issue at hand is that you stated words have no power. That is incorrect. The cruscades is a good examble of how words were used to justify greed of one or two people. War Propaganda is another fine examble. Then tribal warfare and blood fueds of old were often over just words. That's not the issue. As I said even if you proove to me that words have power with ONE only ONE concret example in a discussion or oratory in the past, you'll have to find a causal relationship between the words and the following event. Why is that important? Because that actually has some real disvalue in it, and could be banned, there's find line between safety and paranoia.
So the term Freedom is pure magic? Hmm interesting.....:juggle2: If you apply a lot of restrictions to it, specially unreasonable ones, yes... But that's not what I meant. Plato and other essensialists (someone called them verbal realists) thought that words weren't stablished by convention and that they held all the essense inside of the objects that they designed, thus the essence couldn't be separeted from the vehicle that drove it. If you say sedition or the expression I put some posts above, then by this perspective, as a spell, a magical reaction should surge and the essence of sedition should be reality (i.e. if you say sedition there's a sedition). That's not what happens. I didn't wanted to enter this boring metaphysical controversy, but you played with words so I only fought back. ~;p
And you have your answer which you refuse to acknowledge.:idea2:
Someone is not paying attention. :embarassed:
Well since someone is not paying attention ----:inquisitive:
Done before I wrote that sentence. :help:
The problem is that your mixing up the concepts and the ideas. Your not thinking outside of the box - your doing something else.I'm wondering if I should put an smily here or actually give an answer, but since I see nothing to discuss: :2thumbsup:
Kind note to Redleg: Whenever I find a response like "go back to other post", "read the sentence again", "you missed the point", etc. I'll only post an smile or a simple GAH! Since I'm obfuscated and doing otherwise would be running un circles. Thank you.
To bad that you find yourself obfuscated. It would help if you attempted to understand what is written instead of continuing to ask the same question over and over again.
That's not the issue. As I said even if you proove to me that words have power with ONE only ONE concret example in a discussion or oratory in the past, you'll have to find a causal relationship between the words and the following event. Why is that important? Because that actually has some real disvalue in it, and could be banned, there's find line between safety and paranoia.
The First Ammendment is about the power of speech, the ability to use words. That in itself shows taht words have power. The right to Free Speech demonstrates the power of words in its concept. Your refusing to understand that. History is chalk full with such exambles.
If you apply a lot of restrictions to it, specially unreasonable ones, yes... But that's not what I meant. Plato and other essensialists (someone called them verbal realists) thought that words weren't stablished by convention and that they held all the essense inside of the objects that they designed, thus the essence couldn't be separeted from the vehicle that drove it. If you say sedition or the expression I put some posts above, then by this perspective, as a spell, a magical reaction should surge and the essence of sedition should be reality (i.e. if you say sedition there's a sedition). That's not what happens. I didn't wanted to enter this boring metaphysical controversy, but you played with words so I only fought back. ~;p
You claim that its magic - where it is the basis of democracy. The power of words is demonstrated in treaties, and laws all the time, the basis of the Constitution is the fundmental belief in the power of the words and the charter that it creates.
Restrictions based upon advocating violence on others does not seem unreasonable when one takes a good look at history.
:idea2:
:embarassed:
:inquisitive:
:help:
I'm wondering if I should put an smily here or actually give an answer, but since I see nothing to discuss: :2thumbsup:
[/quote]
Or most likely you have run the course of your ability to discuss the subject without returning to the basic misunderstanding of the concept and the document under discussion by yourself.
Soulforged
04-29-2006, 20:16
To bad that you find yourself obfuscated. It would help if you attempted to understand what is written instead of continuing to ask the same question over and over again.:idea2:
The First Ammendment is about the power of speech, the ability to use words. That in itself shows taht words have power. The right to Free Speech demonstrates the power of words in its concept. Your refusing to understand that. History is chalk full with such exambles. Or is it about the most basic of things: in a free country I can say whatever I want, whenever I please.
You claim that its magic - where it is the basis of democracy. The power of words is demonstrated in treaties, and laws all the time, the basis of the Constitution is the fundmental belief in the power of the words and the charter that it creates.Those words have no power if there's no actual group of humans that enforce it, and other humans that order them to enforce it. We're ruled by humans Red not texts.
Restrictions based upon advocating violence on others does not seem unreasonable when one takes a good look at history.Not at all. Not anyone who says "revolution" will be followed. If your country is faring well, then it's most likely that nothing will happen.
Or most likely you have run the course of your ability to discuss the subject without returning to the basic misunderstanding of the concept and the document under discussion by yourself.You've called a borrowed opinion my misunderstanding. However you're right that I'm out of resources to demonstrate that there's no %100 secure interpretation of anything. But you've answered my question in this last post, you find this restriction to be reasonable, I don't, in matters of moral evaluation is almost impossible to change one's mind, so perhaps we should leave it there. As far as the Constitution goes, there's no inherent principle or law that stablishes advocation of sedition as unprotected speech. However we already went beyond it's literal meaning, and this always resorts to a moral evaluation, if we differ on that, then there's no point in keeping this discussion alive. Perhaps I could put it on context to see if you keep evaluating it in the same way. Do you think that right now, advocation of sedetion should still be unprotected? Let me give you an example of what I mean by posting something of your article: "...Academic discussion of the theories of, say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test, especially in this post-Soviet era." Does that means that in the Soviet era academic discussion of communism should have been forbidden? Notice how academic discussion is not about violence. But who knows, it could generate some movement wich advocates such conducts. Will that be the cause of sedition? Should it be banned, even if it's not the cause? "But it is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States (the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of success by contemporary Marxists."
:idea2:
Or is it about the most basic of things: in a free country I can say whatever I want, whenever I please.
Its been address - continued discussion can only be fruitful if one is willing to understand the points. Without the desire to understand continued conservation is mote.
Those words have no power if there's no actual group of humans that enforce it, and other humans that order them to enforce it. We're ruled by humans Red not texts.
And once again you are missing the point. Human beings create the words.....
Not at all. Not anyone who says "revolution" will be followed. If your country is faring well, then it's most likely that nothing will happen.
What a poor understanding
You've called a borrowed opinion my misunderstanding. However you're right that I'm out of resources to demonstrate that there's no %100 secure interpretation of anything. But you've answered my question in this last post, you find this restriction to be reasonable, I don't, in matters of moral evaluation is almost impossible to change one's mind, so perhaps we should leave it there.
Again there is reasonable restrictions to the speech. Free Speech requires responsiblity. Morals evaluation does not apply to this discussion.
As far as the Constitution goes, there's no inherent principle or law that stablishes advocation of sedition as unprotected speech.
Incorrect - you have not paid attention to what the article section clause that I posted states.
However we already went beyond it's literal meaning, and this always resorts to a moral evaluation, if we differ on that, then there's no point in keeping this discussion alive.
There is no moral evaluation being conducted - ethical discussion is what is going on.
Perhaps I could put it on context to see if you keep evaluating it in the same way. Do you think that right now, advocation of sedetion should still be unprotected?
THe advocation of sedetion is by its very nature unprotected speech.
Let me give you an example of what I mean by posting something of your article: "...Academic discussion of the theories of, say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test, especially in this post-Soviet era." Does that means that in the Soviet era academic discussion of communism should have been forbidden?
That is not sedition - and I image that you alreadly know that. So are you reaching?
Notice how academic discussion is not about violence. But who knows, it could generate some movement wich advocates such conducts. Will that be the cause of sedition? Should it be banned, even if it's not the cause? "But it is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States (the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of success by contemporary Marxists."
Your questions are mote since the situation establish does not advocate sedition. The advocation of the destruction of the United States by an artist is not sedition unless that artist is a citizen of the United States asking other citizens to violently overthrow the government. Your concept of sedition is based upon the same misunderstanding of the US Constitution that you seem to still be suffering under.
KafirChobee
04-30-2006, 06:06
And the winner is ...... Soulforged, for not repeating himself more than three times and actually adressing the issues versus giving tart one liners (except in questoning one liners), and for grasping the idea behind having the Bill of Rights (amendments staututes) in the first place. Both as clarrification to the Constitution and to allow for further interpretation of law for future generations to expand upon (not limit or constrict).
Thing is, men make up the courts, and men have their prejudices - therefore, the most ambiguous of all the amendments (The First; I mean, it covers alot of ground without defining the limitations of them - freespeech, religion, the press ... gah! - In effect, maybe they meant there should be absolutely no restrictions) - is revised yearly by the Supreme Court. And has been for +200 years. According to the stacking of the Court itself - remember some of the cases prior to the Civil War that upheld it illegal to speak against slavery (anyone argueing it was right ..... please, think! Had they not - they may have prevented the war. Doubt it, but ... what they hey - maybe as obscure as possible).
As for "freespeech", in that catagory and that alone - it has for the most part been sloughed off on the States; unless they arrogantly violate it (in which case the ACLU gets dragged into it - thank God for the ACLU, they'll defend anyone's rights). My point, is speech and our freedom to use it in any manner we choose - even for sedition - is granted by law. What is not guaranteed, is that anyone will listen.
Thing is, men make up the courts, and men have their prejudices - therefore, the most ambiguous of all the amendments (The First; I mean, it covers alot of ground without defining the limitations of them - freespeech, religion, the press ... gah! - In effect, maybe they meant there should be absolutely no restrictions) - is revised yearly by the Supreme Court. And has been for +200 years. According to the stacking of the Court itself - remember some of the cases prior to the Civil War that upheld it illegal to speak against slavery (anyone argueing it was right ..... please, think! Had they not - they may have prevented the war. Doubt it, but ... what they hey - maybe as obscure as possible).
Now you are getting into the issue verus speaking through the side of your face. The Constitution allows for interpation and correction through the three branches of the government. Freedom of Speech is something that requires the use of responsible speech, without responsibility the right does not exist. Past courts made mistakes in which future courts have made corrections to their decisions - that is exactly how the process is suppose to work.
Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from responsility.
As for "freespeech", in that catagory and that alone - it has for the most part been sloughed off on the States; unless they arrogantly violate it (in which case the ACLU gets dragged into it - thank God for the ACLU, they'll defend anyone's rights). My point, is speech and our freedom to use it in any manner we choose - even for sedition - is granted by law. What is not guaranteed, is that anyone will listen.
Again sedition is not a right. This is where people get confused about the constitution and the ammendments say. THe government has the obligation to preserve the union as the constitution clearly states. Sedition is speech that the government has the obligation to prosecute. The founding fathers on purpose (I believe) established this contradiction in the constitution for two reasons.
1) To keep the govenment in check by giving the people the right to free speech
2) to allow the government to indeed prosecute certain speech to prevent certain activities from becoming harmful to the nation. If the nature of cause of sedition based speech is great the popular uprising would happen regardless of the government's actions.
One must remember the final (and major case) examble of sedition that I have yet to mention, but you brought into the conservation without understanding the nature of the discussion. If Sedition was a right - why was the American Civil War fought?
Oh wait, your immediate response will be because it was about slaverly. Yes indeed but what did the southern states do if it was not attempting to conduct sedition against the nation when they advocated seccession and the violent removal of Federal troops from their states?
Soulforged
04-30-2006, 21:33
Its been address - continued discussion can only be fruitful if one is willing to understand the points. Without the desire to understand continued conservation is mote.:juggle2:
And once again you are missing the point. Human beings create the words.....I see. So then the words have power by themselves. There's some misterious spirit behind the written words that give them life.
What a poor understanding :juggle2:
Again there is reasonable restrictions to the speech. Free Speech requires responsiblity. Morals evaluation does not apply to this discussion.Yes it does, Courts cannot leave morals outside the issue.
Incorrect - you have not paid attention to what the article section clause that I posted states. You mean the "peaceably" part? I thought I had explained that already. Saying peaceably doesn't exclude violently. The violent cases should be evalueted one by one, in context, with morals, and see if it's reasonable to ban certain speech.
There is no moral evaluation being conducted - ethical discussion is what is going on.As you see fit...
THe advocation of sedetion is by its very nature unprotected speech.Again so says you. I still don't know why are you so reluctant to accept the interpretation that I posted, is it because you don't like contradictions?
That is not sedition - and I image that you alreadly know that. So are you reaching?Who talked about sedition? I tought I was talking about advocating sedition. The example comes from the same source you gave me. You see the point is that this speeches could all generate sedition in the way you see it: the group of students hearing the speech of the master could all be moved by marxist ideas. Anyway, do you see how things changed upon context, I think it was pretty reasonable to ban marxist material in the Soviet era, I wouldn't do it, but anyone could interpret the 1st Amendment in that sense as they did in those examples that you gave me, and as I did.
Your questions are mote since the situation establish does not advocate sedition. The advocation of the destruction of the United States by an artist is not sedition unless that artist is a citizen of the United States asking other citizens to violently overthrow the government. Your concept of sedition is based upon the same misunderstanding of the US Constitution that you seem to still be suffering under.Why do you say that Red? Couldn't you simply suppose that the artist was american and save space, after all the question is, again, on the same source, I've not created anything yet. Is an interesting question, it could, as in the marxist academic discussion, generate some kind of sedition, even when there's no sufficient reason for such thing. What am I saying is that the principal point is: how likely could be sedition in any of those cases? Does it differ from soviet to non-soviet era? From this times to the times when the USA was only a baby?
:juggle2:
I see. So then the words have power by themselves. There's some misterious spirit behind the written words that give them life.
The concept of law.
Yes it does, Courts cannot leave morals outside the issue.
Again the discussion is of ethics.
You mean the "peaceably" part? I thought I had explained that already. Saying peaceably doesn't exclude violently. The violent cases should be evalueted one by one, in context, with morals, and see if it's reasonable to ban certain speech.
Again you did not pay attention to the Article, Section, Clause that was provided and what it states.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
As you see fit...
Morals have only two outcomes - right and wrong. Ethics have multiple outcomes. The discussion is of ethics, not morals. Freedom of speech is not a moral issue but one of ethics.
Again so says you. I still don't know why are you so reluctant to accept the interpretation that I posted, is it because you don't like contradictions?
Oh I like contradictions - however sedition is not a right. By its very definition the state has the obligation to prosecute sedition.
As evident once again by the above mentioned quote from the constitution.
Who talked about sedition? I tought I was talking about advocating sedition. The example comes from the same source you gave me. You see the point is that this speeches could all generate sedition in the way you see it: the group of students hearing the speech of the master could all be moved by marxist ideas. Anyway, do you see how things changed upon context, I think it was pretty reasonable to ban marxist material in the Soviet era, I wouldn't do it, but anyone could interpret the 1st Amendment in that sense as they did in those examples that you gave me, and as I did.
Questioning economic or governmental policy is not sedition. The examples that you quoted is not sedition since it does not advocate the destruction of the stat, nor the overthrow of the government, so no the text you used would not muster or generate sedition in the matter in which sedition is defined, in the constitution or by myself. So yes indeed it does seem that your reaching.
Why do you say that Red? Couldn't you simply suppose that the artist was american and save space, after all the question is, again, on the same source, I've not created anything yet. Is an interesting question, it could, as in the marxist academic discussion, generate some kind of sedition, even when there's no sufficient reason for such thing. What am I saying is that the principal point is: how likely could be sedition in any of those cases? Does it differ from soviet to non-soviet era? From this times to the times when the USA was only a baby?
You have confused yourself about what sedition is. No point discussing the issue farther until you understand what the term means and what it entails.
Here I will help you with the definition of sedition as provided by Websters with the approiate portion bolded for ease of reading
Main Entry: se·di·tion
Pronunciation: si-'di-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin sedition-, seditio, literally, separation, from se- apart + ition-, itio act of going, from ire to go -- more at SECEDE, ISSUE
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
Soulforged
05-01-2006, 18:16
The concept of law.I think that you're confused with a concept that has been and is being debated more than you could possibly knew, or perhaps you can surprise me once again...
Again the discussion is of ethics. Do you want to argue that the background of all ethics is not morals?
Again you did not pay attention to the Article, Section, Clause that was provided and what it states.:juggle2:
Morals have only two outcomes - right and wrong. Ethics have multiple outcomes. The discussion is of ethics, not morals. Freedom of speech is not a moral issue but one of ethics.Again the same. There's tons of books on philosophy of law that talk about moral as the last and inevitable resource of all judges. I can present you with some if you want, but of course you could probably dismiss it in the process of translation.
Oh I like contradictions - however sedition is not a right. By its very definition the state has the obligation to prosecute sedition.
As evident once again by the above mentioned quote from the constitution.But what about advocating sedition? Murdering anyone is not a right, however you can talk about murdering an specific person or an specific class in songs and not get persecuted or get a conviction... Perhaps I cannot walk the walk, but I can talk the talk (is that how it goes?:inquisitive: ).
Questioning economic or governmental policy is not sedition. The examples that you quoted is not sedition since it does not advocate the destruction of the stat, nor the overthrow of the government, so no the text you used would not muster or generate sedition in the matter in which sedition is defined, in the constitution or by myself. So yes indeed it does seem that your reaching.Mmmm...Marxist theory now doesn't advocate the violent overthrowing of the government...
You have confused yourself about what sedition is. No point discussing the issue farther until you understand what the term means and what it entails.
Here I will help you with the definition of sedition as provided by Websters with the approiate portion bolded for ease of readingI love this condecendent talk...:laugh4:...It must be a problem of translation then, since we don't use the same word to describe it's incitement and engagement. Now, the exception made by the courts only talks about advocating sedition...Why none of those examples constitutes sedition? In case you didn't noticed your explanation was not sufficient.
I think that you're confused with a concept that has been and is being debated more than you could possibly knew, or perhaps you can surprise me once again...
Not confused at all. If laws and governments don't show the basic power of the written language then your arguement means little.
Do you want to argue that the background of all ethics is not morals?
The background of ethics is more then morals.
Again the same. There's tons of books on philosophy of law that talk about moral as the last and inevitable resource of all judges. I can present you with some if you want, but of course you could probably dismiss it in the process of translation.
You have misunderstood the statement once again. Freedom of speech is an ethical discussion not a moral one.
But what about advocating sedition? Murdering anyone is not a right, however you can talk about murdering an specific person or an specific class in songs and not get persecuted or get a conviction... Perhaps I cannot walk the walk, but I can talk the talk (is that how it goes?:inquisitive: ).
You would be incorrect again- people can and have been arrested for talking about murdering a specific person.
Mmmm...Marxist theory now doesn't advocate the violent overthrowing of the government...
Marxist theory advocates many things, the overthrow of the capitialistic government being one of them. Discussing the theory of Marxism does not in itself mean that individuals are advocating the overthrow of the government. Sedition speech is not a right.
I love this condecendent talk...:laugh4:...It must be a problem of translation then, since we don't use the same word to describe it's incitement and engagement. Now, the exception made by the courts only talks about advocating sedition...Why none of those examples constitutes sedition? In case you didn't noticed your explanation was not sufficient.
[/quote]
The explanation was sufficent. When you have a base understanding of the US Constitution and the concepts involved with that document then we can continue the discussion.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.