What does the First Ammendment mean?

[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...

[Redleg]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Soulforged]

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.

[Redleg]

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..

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.

[Joker85]

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.

[Joker85]

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]

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.

[Redleg]

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.