What does the First Ammendment mean?

[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.