What does the First Ammendment mean?

[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.

[KafirChobee]

And the winner is ...... Soulforged, for not repeating himself more than three times and actually adressing the issues versus giving tart one liners (except in questoning one liners), and for grasping the idea behind having the Bill of Rights (amendments staututes) in the first place. Both as clarrification to the Constitution and to allow for further interpretation of law for future generations to expand upon (not limit or constrict).

Thing is, men make up the courts, and men have their prejudices - therefore, the most ambiguous of all the amendments (The First; I mean, it covers alot of ground without defining the limitations of them - freespeech, religion, the press ... gah! - In effect, maybe they meant there should be absolutely no restrictions) - is revised yearly by the Supreme Court. And has been for +200 years. According to the stacking of the Court itself - remember some of the cases prior to the Civil War that upheld it illegal to speak against slavery (anyone argueing it was right ..... please, think! Had they not - they may have prevented the war. Doubt it, but ... what they hey - maybe as obscure as possible).

As for "freespeech", in that catagory and that alone - it has for the most part been sloughed off on the States; unless they arrogantly violate it (in which case the ACLU gets dragged into it - thank God for the ACLU, they'll defend anyone's rights). My point, is speech and our freedom to use it in any manner we choose - even for sedition - is granted by law. What is not guaranteed, is that anyone will listen.

[Redleg]

Thing is, men make up the courts, and men have their prejudices - therefore, the most ambiguous of all the amendments (The First; I mean, it covers alot of ground without defining the limitations of them - freespeech, religion, the press ... gah! - In effect, maybe they meant there should be absolutely no restrictions) - is revised yearly by the Supreme Court. And has been for +200 years. According to the stacking of the Court itself - remember some of the cases prior to the Civil War that upheld it illegal to speak against slavery (anyone argueing it was right ..... please, think! Had they not - they may have prevented the war. Doubt it, but ... what they hey - maybe as obscure as possible).

Now you are getting into the issue verus speaking through the side of your face. The Constitution allows for interpation and correction through the three branches of the government. Freedom of Speech is something that requires the use of responsible speech, without responsibility the right does not exist. Past courts made mistakes in which future courts have made corrections to their decisions - that is exactly how the process is suppose to work.

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from responsility.

As for "freespeech", in that catagory and that alone - it has for the most part been sloughed off on the States; unless they arrogantly violate it (in which case the ACLU gets dragged into it - thank God for the ACLU, they'll defend anyone's rights). My point, is speech and our freedom to use it in any manner we choose - even for sedition - is granted by law. What is not guaranteed, is that anyone will listen.

Again sedition is not a right. This is where people get confused about the constitution and the ammendments say. THe government has the obligation to preserve the union as the constitution clearly states. Sedition is speech that the government has the obligation to prosecute. The founding fathers on purpose (I believe) established this contradiction in the constitution for two reasons.

1) To keep the govenment in check by giving the people the right to free speech
2) to allow the government to indeed prosecute certain speech to prevent certain activities from becoming harmful to the nation. If the nature of cause of sedition based speech is great the popular uprising would happen regardless of the government's actions.

One must remember the final (and major case) examble of sedition that I have yet to mention, but you brought into the conservation without understanding the nature of the discussion. If Sedition was a right - why was the American Civil War fought?

Oh wait, your immediate response will be because it was about slaverly. Yes indeed but what did the southern states do if it was not attempting to conduct sedition against the nation when they advocated seccession and the violent removal of Federal troops from their states?

[Soulforged]

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.

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

I see. So then the words have power by themselves. There's some misterious spirit behind the written words that give them life.

What a poor understanding

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

Yes it does, Courts cannot leave morals outside the issue.

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

You mean the "peaceably" part? I thought I had explained that already. Saying peaceably doesn't exclude violently. The violent cases should be evalueted one by one, in context, with morals, and see if it's reasonable to ban certain speech.

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

As you see fit...

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

Again so says you. I still don't know why are you so reluctant to accept the interpretation that I posted, is it because you don't like contradictions?

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

Who talked about sedition? I tought I was talking about advocating sedition. The example comes from the same source you gave me. You see the point is that this speeches could all generate sedition in the way you see it: the group of students hearing the speech of the master could all be moved by marxist ideas. Anyway, do you see how things changed upon context, I think it was pretty reasonable to ban marxist material in the Soviet era, I wouldn't do it, but anyone could interpret the 1st Amendment in that sense as they did in those examples that you gave me, and as I did.

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.

Why do you say that Red? Couldn't you simply suppose that the artist was american and save space, after all the question is, again, on the same source, I've not created anything yet. Is an interesting question, it could, as in the marxist academic discussion, generate some kind of sedition, even when there's no sufficient reason for such thing. What am I saying is that the principal point is: how likely could be sedition in any of those cases? Does it differ from soviet to non-soviet era? From this times to the times when the USA was only a baby?

[Redleg]

I see. So then the words have power by themselves. There's some misterious spirit behind the written words that give them life.

The concept of law.

Yes it does, Courts cannot leave morals outside the issue.

Again the discussion is of ethics.

You mean the "peaceably" part? I thought I had explained that already. Saying peaceably doesn't exclude violently. The violent cases should be evalueted one by one, in context, with morals, and see if it's reasonable to ban certain speech.

Again you did not pay attention to the Article, Section, Clause that was provided and what it states.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

As you see fit...

Morals have only two outcomes - right and wrong. Ethics have multiple outcomes. The discussion is of ethics, not morals. Freedom of speech is not a moral issue but one of ethics.

Again so says you. I still don't know why are you so reluctant to accept the interpretation that I posted, is it because you don't like contradictions?

Oh I like contradictions - however sedition is not a right. By its very definition the state has the obligation to prosecute sedition.
As evident once again by the above mentioned quote from the constitution.

Who talked about sedition? I tought I was talking about advocating sedition. The example comes from the same source you gave me. You see the point is that this speeches could all generate sedition in the way you see it: the group of students hearing the speech of the master could all be moved by marxist ideas. Anyway, do you see how things changed upon context, I think it was pretty reasonable to ban marxist material in the Soviet era, I wouldn't do it, but anyone could interpret the 1st Amendment in that sense as they did in those examples that you gave me, and as I did.

Questioning economic or governmental policy is not sedition. The examples that you quoted is not sedition since it does not advocate the destruction of the stat, nor the overthrow of the government, so no the text you used would not muster or generate sedition in the matter in which sedition is defined, in the constitution or by myself. So yes indeed it does seem that your reaching.

Why do you say that Red? Couldn't you simply suppose that the artist was american and save space, after all the question is, again, on the same source, I've not created anything yet. Is an interesting question, it could, as in the marxist academic discussion, generate some kind of sedition, even when there's no sufficient reason for such thing. What am I saying is that the principal point is: how likely could be sedition in any of those cases? Does it differ from soviet to non-soviet era? From this times to the times when the USA was only a baby?

You have confused yourself about what sedition is. No point discussing the issue farther until you understand what the term means and what it entails.

Here I will help you with the definition of sedition as provided by Websters with the approiate portion bolded for ease of reading

Main Entry: se·di·tion
Pronunciation: si-'di-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin sedition-, seditio, literally, separation, from se- apart + ition-, itio act of going, from ire to go -- more at SECEDE, ISSUE
: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

[Soulforged]

The concept of law.

I think that you're confused with a concept that has been and is being debated more than you could possibly knew, or perhaps you can surprise me once again...

Again the discussion is of ethics.

Do you want to argue that the background of all ethics is not morals?

Again you did not pay attention to the Article, Section, Clause that was provided and what it states.

Morals have only two outcomes - right and wrong. Ethics have multiple outcomes. The discussion is of ethics, not morals. Freedom of speech is not a moral issue but one of ethics.

Again the same. There's tons of books on philosophy of law that talk about moral as the last and inevitable resource of all judges. I can present you with some if you want, but of course you could probably dismiss it in the process of translation.

Oh I like contradictions - however sedition is not a right. By its very definition the state has the obligation to prosecute sedition.
As evident once again by the above mentioned quote from the constitution.

But what about advocating sedition? Murdering anyone is not a right, however you can talk about murdering an specific person or an specific class in songs and not get persecuted or get a conviction... Perhaps I cannot walk the walk, but I can talk the talk (is that how it goes? ).

Questioning economic or governmental policy is not sedition. The examples that you quoted is not sedition since it does not advocate the destruction of the stat, nor the overthrow of the government, so no the text you used would not muster or generate sedition in the matter in which sedition is defined, in the constitution or by myself. So yes indeed it does seem that your reaching.

Mmmm...Marxist theory now doesn't advocate the violent overthrowing of the government...

You have confused yourself about what sedition is. No point discussing the issue farther until you understand what the term means and what it entails.
Here I will help you with the definition of sedition as provided by Websters with the approiate portion bolded for ease of reading

I love this condecendent talk......It must be a problem of translation then, since we don't use the same word to describe it's incitement and engagement. Now, the exception made by the courts only talks about advocating sedition...Why none of those examples constitutes sedition? In case you didn't noticed your explanation was not sufficient.

[Redleg]

I think that you're confused with a concept that has been and is being debated more than you could possibly knew, or perhaps you can surprise me once again...

Not confused at all. If laws and governments don't show the basic power of the written language then your arguement means little.

Do you want to argue that the background of all ethics is not morals?

The background of ethics is more then morals.

Again the same. There's tons of books on philosophy of law that talk about moral as the last and inevitable resource of all judges. I can present you with some if you want, but of course you could probably dismiss it in the process of translation.

You have misunderstood the statement once again. Freedom of speech is an ethical discussion not a moral one.

But what about advocating sedition? Murdering anyone is not a right, however you can talk about murdering an specific person or an specific class in songs and not get persecuted or get a conviction... Perhaps I cannot walk the walk, but I can talk the talk (is that how it goes? ).

You would be incorrect again- people can and have been arrested for talking about murdering a specific person.

Mmmm...Marxist theory now doesn't advocate the violent overthrowing of the government...

Marxist theory advocates many things, the overthrow of the capitialistic government being one of them. Discussing the theory of Marxism does not in itself mean that individuals are advocating the overthrow of the government. Sedition speech is not a right.

I love this condecendent talk......It must be a problem of translation then, since we don't use the same word to describe it's incitement and engagement. Now, the exception made by the courts only talks about advocating sedition...Why none of those examples constitutes sedition? In case you didn't noticed your explanation was not sufficient.

[/quote]

The explanation was sufficent. When you have a base understanding of the US Constitution and the concepts involved with that document then we can continue the discussion.

[Redleg]

Double post