What does the First Ammendment mean?

[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?