What does the First Ammendment mean?

[Duke of Gloucester]

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

[Redleg]

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

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]

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.

[Soulforged]

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!!

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[BHCWarman88]

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..

[BigTex]

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

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]

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.

[Proletariat]

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.

[BigTex]

What is the point

Free tibet!

of having

NO OIL FOR BLOOD!

this so called free

Guantanimo 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?

I've already ordered 10 'Free Wang

Not very PG-13.