What does the First Ammendment mean?

[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."