What does the First Ammendment mean?

[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...