Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
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.