What does the First Ammendment mean?

[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.

[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.

[Haudegen]

The 2nd Ammendment is not aimed at a situation where the constitution is out of effect.

The 2nd Ammendment certainly has practical effects in times where the constitution is in effect. You have the right to bear arms.

But the idea of it is IMHO a situation where the constitution is out of effect. If the US founding fathers had known for sure that the constitutional order could never be in danger in the future, then they wouldn´t have made the 2nd Ammendment.

Therefore I think it´s okay to say it is aimed at a situation where constitution is out of effect. It´s a kind of safeguard for such situations.

[Joker85]

True, but it's not so much for a situation where "the constitution is not in effect" but a situation where a person tries to take away your rights that are declared in the constitution. I believe the rights declared in the constitution are always in effect from the moment we are born to the moment we die.

So even if we had the most despotic regime imaginable in power, the constitution would still be there. I agree that if they knew the constitution would always be respected there would be no need for a 2nd amendment (to a point, they also intended it to be for situations of self defense) but you can really say that about anything. If they knew for certain we would never have a government or leader try to take away our right to assemble, they wouldn't have needed to put it in the constitution would they?

[Haudegen]

True, but it's not so much for a situation where "the constitution is not in effect" but a situation where a person tries to take away your rights that are declared in the constitution.

Hmm, if your neighbour tells you that you shouldn´t believe in the religion of your choice in a harassing way. Who are you going to call? Your arms dealer or your lawyer? I think the protection of individual rights against other individuals is first of all a matter where you can count on the force of the state.

I believe the rights declared in the constitution are always in effect from the moment we are born to the moment we die.

So even if we had the most despotic regime imaginable in power, the constitution would still be there.

Laws are pure fiction unless they are executed. If the this despotic regime didn´t care to repeal the constitution but simply ignores it, what´s the point in having a constitution then?

I agree that if they knew the constitution would always be respected there would be no need for a 2nd amendment (to a point, they also intended it to be for situations of self defense) but you can really say that about anything. If they knew for certain we would never have a government or leader try to take away our right to assemble, they wouldn't have needed to put it in the constitution would they?

I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own.

But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.

[Redleg]

The 2nd Ammendment certainly has practical effects in times where the constitution is in effect. You have the right to bear arms.

In this you are correct.

But the idea of it is IMHO a situation where the constitution is out of effect. If the US founding fathers had known for sure that the constitutional order could never be in danger in the future, then they wouldn´t have made the 2nd Ammendment.

In this you are incorrect. Study the reasons behind the consitution and the inclusion of the 2nd Ammendment into the document. It will provide greater insight into why the ammendment was added.

An starting point is to realize the circumstances and situations of the time, and what the men who wrote the consitution believed in.

Therefore I think it´s okay to say it is aimed at a situation where constitution is out of effect. It´s a kind of safeguard for such situations.

That is only one of the several reasons that the ammendment was included.

[Redleg]

Hmm, if your neighbour tells you that you shouldn´t believe in the religion of your choice in a harassing way. Who are you going to call? Your arms dealer or your lawyer? I think the protection of individual rights against other individuals is first of all a matter where you can count on the force of the state.

That is where it begins. But the scenerio you paint here is not the only one that people face.

Laws are pure fiction unless they are executed. If the this despotic regime didn´t care to repeal the constitution but simply ignores it, what´s the point in having a constitution then?

Ask yourself why? Its rather a simple question to answer. The people allow the government to exist. The constitution is not just a governing document for how the government is to function - it is the contract between the people and the government.

I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own.

In this you are missing the idea behind the 2nd Ammendment in particuler, and in the other ammendments in general.

But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.

Incorrect - one always has the right to defend the constitution regardless if there are tyrants in office or simpletons. Rights don't work in the context of "normal" and "circumstance" - rights exist as rights or not at all.

[Haudegen]

Ask yourself why? Its rather a simple question to answer. The people allow the government to exist. The constitution is not just a governing document for how the government is to function - it is the contract between the people and the government.

Of course, Redleg. But in the scenario that Joker describes the government obviously refuses to comply with the contract. What´s the point in having a constitution then?

In this you are missing the idea behind the 2nd Ammendment in particuler, and in the other ammendments in general.

Could you eleborate a bit more on this?

Incorrect - one always has the right to defend the constitution regardless if there are tyrants in office or simpletons. Rights don't work in the context of "normal" and "circumstance" - rights exist as rights or not at all.

The right to defend the constitution is course always there. We are talking about defending the constitution with violent measures. I think we agree that you can´t defend it in any situation violently.

[Redleg]

Of course, Redleg. But in the scenario that Joker describes the government obviously refuses to comply with the contract. What´s the point in having a constitution then?

Ask yourself this question, How does one justify a repellion against a domocratic state?

Could you eleborate a bit more on this?

All 10 ammendments known as the "Bill of Rights" serve a purpose.

The right to defend the constitution is course always there. We are talking about defending the constitution with violent measures. I think we agree that you can´t defend it in any situation violently.

The right exists regardless - that is the point.

[Haudegen]

Ask yourself this question, How does one justify a repellion against a domocratic state?

Are you calling the hypothetical regime that Joker described, democratic?

All 10 ammendments known as the "Bill of Rights" serve a purpose.

Again: My initial statement was this:

I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own. But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.

In other words:

I say that the rights of the first kind are primary because they make our lives as civilians in peaceful times worthwhile.

The right to defend other rights requires the existence of before mentioned other rights.

Whats wrong? Where in detail is this, in your opinion, incompatible with the Bill of Rights?

[Redleg]

Are you calling the hypothetical regime that Joker described, democratic?

Nope, giving you a leading question so that you can answer your own question.

Again: My initial statement was this:

I think the 2nd Ammendment is different from other fundamental rights that the constitution gives you. The "normal ones" like free speech, free religion or the right to assemble make the whole constitution worthwhile. They have a value of their own. But the right to defend the constitution against tyrants makes only sense if the constitution is something that is worth defending. And: You don´t need and in fact don´t have this right as long as your "normal rights" are intact.

Again you miss the point of the first 10 ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. All the rights mentioned in those 10 ammendments are rights - or as your trying to allude to "normal." If you deny one of the ammendments that define the rights of the citizens - then you will deny other's as you decide what is right and wrong in your attempt to define the rights as "normal" or circumstancial.

For instance in this discussion the speech that gets individuals in trouble with the state is one that advocates sedition (violent overthrow of the government, also known as insurrection) is mentioned in the text of the Constitution - other types of speech that have been defined by the courts as violating the rights of others, is deemed unprotected speech and the state can prosecute the individual. This is how the process works to define rights and to limit the scope of what constitutes the right or not.

Now while the Judicial Branch has narrowed the scope somewhat of what Freedom of Speech means - they have done so within the scope of their constitutional authority (for the most part), the legislative branch has also done the same thing by adding additional ammendments to the constitution, and by making legislative laws. This is all consistent with the democratic process as envisioned in the constitution.


A basic concept of rights that I have mentioned before.
Rights - require responsiblity. If one is unwilling to accept responsiblity one does not need rights.

I say that the rights of the first kind are primary because they make our lives as civilians in peaceful times worthwhile.

All 10 ammendments in what is called the Bill of Rights serve that function.

The right to defend other rights requires the existence of before mentioned other rights.

Its concurrent with. This is where you are missing the main point of the Bill of Rights and the intent of the Constitution.

Whats wrong? Where in detail is this, in your opinion, incompatible with the Bill of Rights?

Alreadly noted.

[Haudegen]

Nope, giving you a leading question so that you can answer your own question.

I see, thanks.

Again you miss the point of the first 10 ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. All the rights mentioned in those 10 ammendments are rights - or as your trying to allude to "normal." If you deny one of the ammendments that define the rights of the citizens - then you will deny other's as you decide what is right and wrong in your attempt to define the rights as "normal" or circumstancial.

It´s far from me to deny any single word in the Bill of Rights. I was just stating that the right to defend the constitution requires the existence of a constitution. IMHO that´s just a logical conclusion.

For instance in this discussion the speech that gets individuals in trouble with the state is one that advocates sedition (violent overthrow of the government, also known as insurrection) is mentioned in the text of the Constitution - other types of speech that have been defined by the courts as violating the rights of others, is deemed unprotected speech and the state can prosecute the individual. This is how the process works to define rights and to limit the scope of what constitutes the right or not.

I think we already agreed on this some hours ago.

Its concurrent with. This is where you are missing the main point of the Bill of Rights and the intent of the Constitution.

It is concurrent but it could not exist alone. The other rights, in theory, could exist alone. That´s simply a structural difference between the categories I made. It has nothing to do with the question which right in which case should be valued higher than another one.

[Redleg]

It´s far from me to deny any single word in the Bill of Rights. I was just stating that the right to defend the constitution requires the existence of a constitution. IMHO that´s just a logical conclusion.

Again your missing the main point. Rights in the United States would not exist without the constitution. All rights in the United States stem from the constitution.

I think we already agreed on this some hours ago.

In part, however you keep returning to "normal" and circumstancial rights in your arguement. A right exists or it does not.

It is concurrent but it could not exist alone. The other rights, in theory, could exist alone. That´s simply a structural difference between the categories I made. It has nothing to do with the question which right in which case should be valued higher than another one.

All rights in the United States stem from the constitution. If one could not exist alone, all could not exist alone. Any of the current constitutional granted rights could be revoke by the constitutional process.

The arguement that you are attempting here is not one of constitutional rights in the United States but one of a different, but equal concept, that of inherient rights of man.

Even under that concept of rights man has the right to defend himself. So I find fault still with your arguement.

[Haudegen]

Again your missing the main point. Rights in the United States would not exist without the constitution. All rights in the United States stem from the constitution.

Such is the nature of any constitution on earth. Why is this the main point in this debate?

All rights in the United States stem from the constitution. If one could not exist alone, all could not exist alone.

No. Just to give an example: Some parts of your constitution are older than other parts. Of course they could in theory exist alone.

You should differentiate between the parts of the constistution that set rules for the organisation of the state and that part that sets the human rights.

The arguement that you are attempting here is not one of constitutional rights in the United States but one of a different, but equal concept, that of inherient rights of man.

No. It´s only applied logic. I think the legal experts in the USA are applying logic in their argumentation, too. But please correct me if I´m wrong here.

[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]

Such is the nature of any constitution on earth. Why is this the main point in this debate?

It might have something to do with the title of the thread. What does the First Ammendment mean? Hince the discussion was alreadly centered around that document and how it applies to the United States.

No. Just to give an example: Some parts of your constitution are older than other parts. Of course they could in theory exist alone.

Incorrect the text of the constitution has been maintained - the new parts are all ammendments.

You should differentiate between the parts of the constistution that set rules for the organisation of the state and that part that sets the human rights.

Its done - all one has to do is read the document to see it. The main body establishes the rules of the government. The first 10 ammendments set up the rights for the citizens of the nation. The remaining ammendments make futher adjustments to the constitution or address issues concerning rights that were not clearly defined. ie voting being one of them.

No. It´s only applied logic. I think the legal experts in the USA are applying logic in their argumentation, too. But please correct me if I´m wrong here.

Not a lawyer only a student of the constitution.

However you have intermix the concept knows as the "rights of man" within this discussion about what the United States Constitution states in the "Bill of Rights." In discussing rights in the court room - from the documents I have read - the lawyers often refer to the Constitution as the basis of their arguement.

Both concepts are relative to each other - and come from the same time period. Both allow for the defense of self as being a fundmental right of man.

[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.

[Soulforged]

The text of the constitution is clear, your response here is one of interpation by those who only use pieces and parts.

I can give you a little course on interpretation, but I'll not. Just for reference there's what is called "literal meaning", whatever that is, and there's other kinds of interpretations, all valids.

Tsk Tsk - again your arguement is inconsistent. Your interpation of the constitution is incorrect.

But you say it. Right?

So you believe in a revised version of history? Interesting..

Not what I said Red. If we look at history, and you give an example in wich words preceded some event, the relationship between the first and the last is arbitrarilly atributted by you or the historian who did so (or perhaps is just heterodox use of language).

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.

I don't believe you should be in sedition. What I'm saying, and now taking a moral stance, is that you should have the right to advocate sedition. As you said it's on the american people to join you or not, if they're faring well then they'll probably do nothing.

Your statement was inconsistent with your previous arguement.

In wich part of this whole discussion did I said explicitly or implicitly that I didn't want to discuss the 1st Amendement?

Try reading an earlier post - you will find this quote

So that quote means to you that one exception can be made to the 1st Amendment?

Try reading up on the Wiskey Rebellion also.

Interesting history...Does your country has a principle that sets taxes as the parameter for equality for all citizens? On subject, still this adds nothing new, it gives the same prudential reasons that you gave me previously to not engage in sedition, i.e. the state will repell you. Still this event generates another doubt. The rebellion happened after three years of enduring the effects of such law. Are you telling me that this people should endure for such a long period of time this conditions, by peacefully protesting? Another interesting thing, is that the law became unenforceable in 1780, six years after the start of the rebellion. Had the rebellion not taken place, how many more years this conditions would have lasted?

That is what all nations do. Never stated otherwise.

Ok, then.

However your seemly stuck on the same incorrect interpretation as before.

Only because I haven't heard a single arguement wich changed my mind.

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.

No it hasn't. Your post even reassured me on the road. See:"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." The question is still in place. If this is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then what's stoping me from finding a contradiction with the interpretation that courts do of the 1st Amendment. Beyond that, I never said it wasn't working, and it's find by me, this discussion is only important to me, because I like to see different interpretations and their results in the world.

[Redleg]

I can give you a little course on interpretation, but I'll not. Just for reference there's what is called "literal meaning", whatever that is, and there's other kinds of interpretations, all valids.

No need - I image I know as much about interpretation as the next person. SOme interpretations are not valid, when they take the meaning of the document beyond its orginial context.

But you say it. Right?

And in doing so - I have shown where you are incorrect.

Not what I said Red. If we look at history, and you give an example in wich words preceded some event, the relationship between the first and the last is arbitrarilly atributted by you or the historian who did so (or perhaps is just heterodox use of language).

Try explaining some of history where the initial aspect of the event was an exchange of words. Or the reaction to the statements made. So the arbitrarilly design is one not of anyone's imagination. Since this site is dedicated to totalwar games - care to guess how many wars are the result of insults (words) and the call to kill the unbeliver?

I don't believe you should be in sedition. What I'm saying, and now taking a moral stance, is that you should have the right to advocate sedition. As you said it's on the american people to join you or not, if they're faring well then they'll probably do nothing.

Sedition is not a right.

In wich part of this whole discussion did I said explicitly or implicitly that I didn't want to discuss the 1st Amendement?

That is not what the statement was refering to.

So that quote means to you that one exception can be made to the 1st Amendment?

Its not an exception to the 1st Ammendment. The text of the constitution comes before the ammendments. The 1st Ammendment does not release the National government from upholding its responsiblities to preserve the Union.

Try reading up on the Wiskey Rebellion also.

I see you don't have a response for the Whiskey Rebellion. It covers certain aspects of this discussion with a case history.

Ok, then.

Only because I haven't heard a single arguement wich changed my mind.

When one is stuck on the incorrect understanding of what the document states and the meaning inherient in the document as it is written - then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Your focusing on sedition when the main document states that the government shall defend itself against such acts, to the point that you have seemly ignored the text of the orginial document.

The discussion is not how Freedom of Speech is applied to other nations - but how it is applied in the United States. Which means one must understand the scope of the constitution as a whole and the ammendments in spefic.

[Soulforged]

No need - I image I know as much about interpretation as the next person. SOme interpretations are not valid, when they take the meaning of the document beyond its orginial context.

Interpretation: Giving meaning to a word or sentence.

And in doing so - I have shown where you are incorrect.

OKA.

Try explaining some of history where the initial aspect of the event was an exchange of words. Or the reaction to the statements made. So the arbitrarilly design is one not of anyone's imagination. Since this site is dedicated to totalwar games - care to guess how many wars are the result of insults (words) and the call to kill the unbeliver?

Those are complex events. But go ahead, you give me any example in wich wars, or any other dramatic event, started just by exchaging words and ideas.

Sedition is not a right.

Perhaps not, but that's not what someone says about the 2nd Amendment. In regards to the 1st one, well I talked about advocating sedition, not sedition itself. Again you're atributing magic to the words.

That is not what the statement was refering to.

No. The topic was specifically to ask americans about the configuration of the actual positive law of the country built over the basis of the 1st Amendment (i.e. what the doctrine and the courts state about it). I'm trying to find another meaning to it, and see if it's reasonable, and my initial question was something different, a comparision between the 1st and the 2nd.

Its not an exception to the 1st Ammendment. The text of the constitution comes before the ammendments. The 1st Ammendment does not release the National government from upholding its responsiblities to preserve the Union.

You think that the right to call the militia to go against threats talks about what you can say or not?

I see you don't have a response for the Whiskey Rebellion. It covers certain aspects of this discussion with a case history.

I actually did. Or are we in different dimensions?

When one is stuck on the incorrect understanding of what the document states and the meaning inherient in the document as it is written - then there is no point in continuing the discussion. Your focusing on sedition when the main document states that the government shall defend itself against such acts, to the point that you have seemly ignored the text of the orginial document.

Compare this vs. what I've stated and what Joker85 stated, and you'll see some problems with that, problems that I've too.

The discussion is not how Freedom of Speech is applied to other nations - but how it is applied in the United States. Which means one must understand the scope of the constitution as a whole and the ammendments in spefic.

Exactly, that was the initial issue. If this was the only think to be discussed then the topic should be over by now, you gave a wonderful explanation of that, I'm thinking outside the box.

[Redleg]

Interpretation: Giving meaning to a word or sentence.

LOL - you missed the point once again.

Those are complex events. But go ahead, you give me any example in wich wars, or any other dramatic event, started just by exchaging words and ideas.

The issue at hand is that you stated words have no power. That is incorrect. The cruscades is a good examble of how words were used to justify greed of one or two people. War Propaganda is another fine examble. Then tribal warfare and blood fueds of old were often over just words.

Perhaps not, but that's not what someone says about the 2nd Amendment.
In regards to the 1st one, well I talked about advocating sedition, not sedition itself. Again you're atributing magic to the words.

So the term Freedom is pure magic? Hmm interesting.....

No. The topic was specifically to ask americans about the configuration of the actual positive law of the country built over the basis of the 1st Amendment (i.e. what the doctrine and the courts state about it). I'm trying to find another meaning to it, and see if it's reasonable, and my initial question was something different, a comparision between the 1st and the 2nd.

And you have your answer which you refuse to acknowledge.

You think that the right to call the militia to go against threats talks about what you can say or not?

Someone is not paying attention.

I actually did. Or are we in different dimensions?

Well since someone is not paying attention ----

Compare this vs. what I've stated and what Joker85 stated, and you'll see some problems with that, problems that I've too.

Done before I wrote that sentence.

Exactly, that was the initial issue. If this was the only think to be discussed then the topic should be over by now, you gave a wonderful explanation of that, I'm thinking outside the box.

The problem is that your mixing up the concepts and the ideas. Your not thinking outside of the box - your doing something else.

[Soulforged]

Kind note to Redleg: Whenever I find a response like "go back to other post", "read the sentence again", "you missed the point", etc. I'll only post an smile or a simple GAH! Since I'm obfuscated and doing otherwise would be running un circles. Thank you.

LOL - you missed the point once again.

The issue at hand is that you stated words have no power. That is incorrect. The cruscades is a good examble of how words were used to justify greed of one or two people. War Propaganda is another fine examble. Then tribal warfare and blood fueds of old were often over just words.

That's not the issue. As I said even if you proove to me that words have power with ONE only ONE concret example in a discussion or oratory in the past, you'll have to find a causal relationship between the words and the following event. Why is that important? Because that actually has some real disvalue in it, and could be banned, there's find line between safety and paranoia.

So the term Freedom is pure magic? Hmm interesting.....

If you apply a lot of restrictions to it, specially unreasonable ones, yes... But that's not what I meant. Plato and other essensialists (someone called them verbal realists) thought that words weren't stablished by convention and that they held all the essense inside of the objects that they designed, thus the essence couldn't be separeted from the vehicle that drove it. If you say sedition or the expression I put some posts above, then by this perspective, as a spell, a magical reaction should surge and the essence of sedition should be reality (i.e. if you say sedition there's a sedition). That's not what happens. I didn't wanted to enter this boring metaphysical controversy, but you played with words so I only fought back.

And you have your answer which you refuse to acknowledge.

Someone is not paying attention.

Well since someone is not paying attention ----

Done before I wrote that sentence.

The problem is that your mixing up the concepts and the ideas. Your not thinking outside of the box - your doing something else.

I'm wondering if I should put an smily here or actually give an answer, but since I see nothing to discuss:

[Redleg]

Kind note to Redleg: Whenever I find a response like "go back to other post", "read the sentence again", "you missed the point", etc. I'll only post an smile or a simple GAH! Since I'm obfuscated and doing otherwise would be running un circles. Thank you.

To bad that you find yourself obfuscated. It would help if you attempted to understand what is written instead of continuing to ask the same question over and over again.

That's not the issue. As I said even if you proove to me that words have power with ONE only ONE concret example in a discussion or oratory in the past, you'll have to find a causal relationship between the words and the following event. Why is that important? Because that actually has some real disvalue in it, and could be banned, there's find line between safety and paranoia.

The First Ammendment is about the power of speech, the ability to use words. That in itself shows taht words have power. The right to Free Speech demonstrates the power of words in its concept. Your refusing to understand that. History is chalk full with such exambles.

If you apply a lot of restrictions to it, specially unreasonable ones, yes... But that's not what I meant. Plato and other essensialists (someone called them verbal realists) thought that words weren't stablished by convention and that they held all the essense inside of the objects that they designed, thus the essence couldn't be separeted from the vehicle that drove it. If you say sedition or the expression I put some posts above, then by this perspective, as a spell, a magical reaction should surge and the essence of sedition should be reality (i.e. if you say sedition there's a sedition). That's not what happens. I didn't wanted to enter this boring metaphysical controversy, but you played with words so I only fought back.

You claim that its magic - where it is the basis of democracy. The power of words is demonstrated in treaties, and laws all the time, the basis of the Constitution is the fundmental belief in the power of the words and the charter that it creates.

Restrictions based upon advocating violence on others does not seem unreasonable when one takes a good look at history.

I'm wondering if I should put an smily here or actually give an answer, but since I see nothing to discuss:

[/quote]

Or most likely you have run the course of your ability to discuss the subject without returning to the basic misunderstanding of the concept and the document under discussion by yourself.

[Soulforged]

To bad that you find yourself obfuscated. It would help if you attempted to understand what is written instead of continuing to ask the same question over and over again.

The First Ammendment is about the power of speech, the ability to use words. That in itself shows taht words have power. The right to Free Speech demonstrates the power of words in its concept. Your refusing to understand that. History is chalk full with such exambles.

Or is it about the most basic of things: in a free country I can say whatever I want, whenever I please.

You claim that its magic - where it is the basis of democracy. The power of words is demonstrated in treaties, and laws all the time, the basis of the Constitution is the fundmental belief in the power of the words and the charter that it creates.

Those words have no power if there's no actual group of humans that enforce it, and other humans that order them to enforce it. We're ruled by humans Red not texts.

Restrictions based upon advocating violence on others does not seem unreasonable when one takes a good look at history.

Not at all. Not anyone who says "revolution" will be followed. If your country is faring well, then it's most likely that nothing will happen.

Or most likely you have run the course of your ability to discuss the subject without returning to the basic misunderstanding of the concept and the document under discussion by yourself.

You've called a borrowed opinion my misunderstanding. However you're right that I'm out of resources to demonstrate that there's no %100 secure interpretation of anything. But you've answered my question in this last post, you find this restriction to be reasonable, I don't, in matters of moral evaluation is almost impossible to change one's mind, so perhaps we should leave it there. As far as the Constitution goes, there's no inherent principle or law that stablishes advocation of sedition as unprotected speech. However we already went beyond it's literal meaning, and this always resorts to a moral evaluation, if we differ on that, then there's no point in keeping this discussion alive. Perhaps I could put it on context to see if you keep evaluating it in the same way. Do you think that right now, advocation of sedetion should still be unprotected? Let me give you an example of what I mean by posting something of your article: "...Academic discussion of the theories of, say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test, especially in this post-Soviet era." Does that means that in the Soviet era academic discussion of communism should have been forbidden? Notice how academic discussion is not about violence. But who knows, it could generate some movement wich advocates such conducts. Will that be the cause of sedition? Should it be banned, even if it's not the cause? "But it is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States (the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of success by contemporary Marxists."

[Redleg]

Or is it about the most basic of things: in a free country I can say whatever I want, whenever I please.

Its been address - continued discussion can only be fruitful if one is willing to understand the points. Without the desire to understand continued conservation is mote.

Those words have no power if there's no actual group of humans that enforce it, and other humans that order them to enforce it. We're ruled by humans Red not texts.

And once again you are missing the point. Human beings create the words.....

Not at all. Not anyone who says "revolution" will be followed. If your country is faring well, then it's most likely that nothing will happen.

What a poor understanding

You've called a borrowed opinion my misunderstanding. However you're right that I'm out of resources to demonstrate that there's no %100 secure interpretation of anything. But you've answered my question in this last post, you find this restriction to be reasonable, I don't, in matters of moral evaluation is almost impossible to change one's mind, so perhaps we should leave it there.

Again there is reasonable restrictions to the speech. Free Speech requires responsiblity. Morals evaluation does not apply to this discussion.

As far as the Constitution goes, there's no inherent principle or law that stablishes advocation of sedition as unprotected speech.

Incorrect - you have not paid attention to what the article section clause that I posted states.

However we already went beyond it's literal meaning, and this always resorts to a moral evaluation, if we differ on that, then there's no point in keeping this discussion alive.

There is no moral evaluation being conducted - ethical discussion is what is going on.

Perhaps I could put it on context to see if you keep evaluating it in the same way. Do you think that right now, advocation of sedetion should still be unprotected?

THe advocation of sedetion is by its very nature unprotected speech.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by posting something of your article: "...Academic discussion of the theories of, say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test, especially in this post-Soviet era." Does that means that in the Soviet era academic discussion of communism should have been forbidden?

That is not sedition - and I image that you alreadly know that. So are you reaching?

Notice how academic discussion is not about violence. But who knows, it could generate some movement wich advocates such conducts. Will that be the cause of sedition? Should it be banned, even if it's not the cause? "But it is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States (the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of success by contemporary Marxists."

Your questions are mote since the situation establish does not advocate sedition. The advocation of the destruction of the United States by an artist is not sedition unless that artist is a citizen of the United States asking other citizens to violently overthrow the government. Your concept of sedition is based upon the same misunderstanding of the US Constitution that you seem to still be suffering under.