Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
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.