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.

[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.

[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.

[Soulforged]

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?

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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.

[Xiahou]

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]

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]

Free speech is nothing but an illusion. Does the law disallowing you from denying the Holocaust sound like free speech?

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[makkyo]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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..

[Redleg]

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.

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]

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...

[Redleg]

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]

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...