What does the First Ammendment mean?

[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.

[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.