-14 votes

Can One American State The Purpose Of Free Speech?

The person that posts, "The purpose is so you can ask that question" is unconstitutional because free speech IS abridged and effort at ridicule abridges that purpose or seeing it manifest because Americans do not know it's purpose,

A clue, there are three specific purposes and they are so logical that once you know them there will be no doubt.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dumbing down?-Confusing purpose for reason

It is so astounding, yes, it is mind numbing.

Astounding . . that the notion of communication vital to survival is not immediately recognized. No wonder the species is starting to kill itself off.

Then there are those that give power to various historical agreements upon free speech, how or what is granted, guaranteed or their interpretations, or whatever, not that they are wrong, but they are not the biological purpose of speech between sentient species.

That is the natural law definition. Since this is all about constitutional intent, I started with free speech. Very illuminating from my perspective.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

mind-numbing . . .

I'm getting too old for this kind of discussion--

I would have bitten it off and chewed it even 10 years ago--

not now--

have fun--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Couldn't leave this alone without a final analysis (`;`)

With respect,
I couldn’t stop thinking about this proposal of yours. At first, the idea seemed very sound. Even noble, given the state of affairs in today’s world.
I reread all of your replies and studied the Amendment itself in order to get a sense of how this would work, and to whom it would apply.

Quotes of your replies;

“So much is omitted, that the document needs review and amendment. But first Americans have to agree on a few things. Do you think it is a good idea that we be allowed, even empowered to share information vital to our survival? Do you think our constitution intended that?”

“How important is sharing such facts if the constitution is to stand? Shall it fail because we follow the rules you choose to observe and promote? Or shall it stand because we use the obvious purposes which exist in natural law as our social contract?”

"1) To assure information needed for survival is shared and understood.
2). To enable unity amongst the people
3). Unity for defense of the constitution
The constitution is a conceptual shield against tyranny.”

And, the revision you propose:

REV. Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.”

Unfortunately, you are putting Congress in charge of assuring how freedom of speech is disseminated. Trusting them to make sure information that is “vital to our survival” is released to the public. That is a mistake. They are already supposed to uphold the Constitution under oath, and we see how that turned out.
Also, who is to judge what information is confidential (right to privacy), what is vital and what is kept under wraps to protect the security of our country? Admittedly, the way it is now, everything gathered is flagged need-to-know whether it is or not vital to security. But, who will make that decision? Certainly you cannot have everything accessible to everyone. I have secrets I surely don’t want YOU to know. They’re personal. Who will determine my right to privacy?

And, what if that information is proprietary? A discovery by a company that could change the computer industry, let’s say. That would provide an easy way to access information – real-time without connecting to anything, for pennies. Are we to force that information from them under the guise of ‘the public good’?
An even scarier scenario;
What if I have knowledge of the Congress misleading the public?
For one, will you force this knowledge from my lips by any means necessary?
And, two, the very entity you have put in charge of insuring the free flow of that information is the subject of contention. Do you honestly think they’ll give themselves up? Or, would they more likely go to any length to cover their butts – even to the point of eliminating me – Hypothetically.
(No, you En ES Aa goons who are reading this, I have no such intel to disclose. And, I’m not suicidal, for the record.)

This next bit is more mush than substance. “possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Using ‘possible’ opens too many doors that may not be able to close in the future. ‘Possible’ is not purposeful.
And, all that love, forgiveness and respect stuff has no place in a document meant to restrict a Government’s power over its constituency. Like I said in an earlier post, it would make a good bumper sticker, not a good Amendment.
And what if we don’t want to share? What if we don’t want you to know our business? This proposal can easily be interpreted as the means to allow Congress to extract information deemed to be “vital” from whomever they think is holding it.
Again, I state, your proposal is a roadmap to tyranny.
It would create an information gathering bureaucracy that has no boundary.
I’ll remind you that Congress does not recognize the boundaries already placed upon it. So, this would be a boon to their info gathering buddies. They would not need to ‘work around’ the restrictions placed on them as they do now, you’d give them the Constitutional tool to allow it.
This is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to amend the Constitution.
I commend you on your effort, and the intent with which you offer this proposal. But, in the final analysis, it would do more harm than good.
In my humble, but learned opinion.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

Accountability is vital Mr. Vette

No way do I say or advocate this.

"Unfortunately, you are putting Congress in charge of assuring how freedom of speech is disseminated. Trusting them to make sure information that is “vital to our survival” is released to the public"

That is a doubly erroneous misinterpretation.

In order to be a constitutional American, you need to be accountable. Otherwise the only safe way to regard you and your post, is as a cognitive infiltration.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

The draft revision does not say this

"Trusting them to make sure information that is “vital to our survival” is released to the public. That is a mistake."

The part of the language in the revision controlling that is the same as the existing.

If you think it says that, you need to excerpt and quote it.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Power equalization with the

Power equalization with the ruling class.

Yes, it has that effect for the masses

But our education so we may rise above mere defense of our rights, and instead use them to evolve.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I am an Individual - the

I am an Individual - the smallest minority. I will speak how, when and where I please so long as I am not infringing on another's rights or property. Purpose does not matter. The second amendment is there so that I may enforce my natural right to free speech and my many other natural rights.

Very simple stuff!

And you alone will defend the constitution

With your gun.

Wouldn't you rather have the right to share your reason for doing that before you are forced to do it?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

The purpose of FREE SPEECH Is To Communicate

When we speak to one of more people isn't it to communicate? If you couldn't speak verbally you could speak non-verbally using hand signals or by smoke signals or by drums as in jungle drums...

The purpose of free speech is to communicate freely without any interference from anyone including government interference...

You are a free person with the god given right, the natural right to communicate freely what it is you want to say, whether it be to lie or to tell the truth....

God, who gave us life gave us liberty; the liberty to speak the truth..

BOOM!

Next!

Why is communication so important?

Because with it we can unify by sharing the most vital information, agreeing upon it and defending our existence from tyranny.

It is only in our agreement that the right to free speech gains power. It can become the greatest authority on the land if we agree widely on the most important things and re-incorporate them in our constitution where truly needed.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Sounds like

The authority of the majority - democracy - the one right way. This doesn't exist, and is a foolish goal.

What about information needed for survival?

Currently you can't get it. Consider, what if you don't know the real threat.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I don't have to have a reason

I don't have to have a reason for a right. That's a fool's argument. Oh, FYI there's no apostrophe in the possessive "its".

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Confusing reason with purpose is fatal to intent

Purpose has a reason, and reason has purpose, but they are not the same. You nullify both with your cognitive confusion. The PTB love it.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Yes, we have to understand to use it.

It is an agreement that the nation enables speech which protects the lives of citizens, if they will understand it.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Reason and purpose are different- related

The reason we have free speech is because its purpose is so vital.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Second law of thermodynamics

free speech increases entropy

Only with officially supported cognitive infiltration

And people not taking the challenge of unity seriously.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Entropy must increase

And more information increases entropy -always.

Unity means many different things to different people, and is just a concept used to assert authority over others and make them serve you. For instance, who's to say who "is not taking the challenge of unity seriously ?" or even that you should do that.

Are priorities overinformation?

The Internet creates overinformation, this is entropy, but it is about priorities of the constitution.

The Internet, when there was only the usenet in1993 had no entropy. Dot com created the entropy, which was unconstitutional. DARPA (CIA technology division) developed the usenet, then congress gave it to commerce making .com.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

The purpose of my free speech is none of your business

We don't have freedom for a policy reason.

We have rights.

Governments have always tried to usurp them.

Because governments always do this the founders attempted to forstall this with the Constitution.

The Constitution forbids the government from infringing them, but does not create, grant, nor in any manner otherwise act in their provision.

You can say that the right to free speech if allowed will tend to prevent the need to use the right to bear arms, and this is true. But it is not the reason for these rights.

You have these rights.

If you want to know the purpose for these rights you need to take it up with your creator.

Would the creator prevent us from knowing the purpose of

free speech?

I think not. Where do you stand with that?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

You talk to her about that and get back to me

In the meantime asking about the purpose of rights is like asking the purpose of Pi or water or stars. There is no purpose. They all have uses, but they don't have a purpose.

I spoke to her and she said children need to be able to

understand it. I think children can understand that their nation protects and empowers speech that helps them share and understand information needed for survival. How about you?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

There is no reason

There is no reason to define the purpose of Free Speech in the Constitution, other that to satisfy your intent on including it because you feel the Native Americans definition should not have been abridged.

Too bad.

The entire works of the DOI and the Constitution are an abridgement ...
... of Laws, statutes, and concepts carefully picked over to reflect what the framers intended. I think they were pretty smart and deliberate fellows, who designed a rule book their Government must follow so that the individual could pursue their own path.

To further define the purpose of free speech with words like "From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" is too narrow.
I may not think free speech should be equated with forgiveness. Or with acceptance.
I do think it should be a right to equate free speech with any narrative that does NOT infringe upon it.

Plain and simple.
Just like the Framers wanted it to be.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

The reason is to make possible definition of which speech

should receive public support sharing information across the nation that is vital to survival.

Currently it is all the same(?) meaning it has no purpose, Or it is completely controlled by academia, MSM corporations and non profit orgs while information that can save our lives cannot be shared.

There are very good reasons, but because information vital to your survival is not shared and understood, you do not know them.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

And there is no way

And there is no way you will effect the flow of any information by amending the Constitution with a more concise definition.

Those who know cannot be forced to disclose what they know.
That would be Tyranny. Not Free Speech.

Your proposal is not an effort to promote free speech, but an effort to force speech from others, and make them share it.

It's wrong. No matter if it would be better for some, okay for all, probably, it is still wrong.

You're way off base, bubba.
With that, my comments on your thread come to an end.
I'm done wasting my free speech on you.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan

The purpose of Free Speech?

Wth is "Free Speech" and why do you think it applies to me?

maybe you should just tell us your three specific purposes for how you view "free speech" so we can debate you logically.

Free Speech has nothing to do with Americans, it only has to do with the restriction placed upon the governing body. THEY cannot touch it, I can do whatever I damn well please. I do not work for the government, I do not live on their land, and I am not restricted to the their laws.

The founders were simply stating the obvious in regards to free people, it holds no bearings and plays no role in any part of my life.

You got a problem with how I run my life? Come visit my house, it's out in the woods, well have a nice long chat about it.

Your perceptions of the purpose is what I seek.

If you are in a house full of people, and someone discovers there is a fire, and you voice a warning, you will find unanimous agreement in the purpose of free speech as the people exit.

With treason we cannot leave, we need to unify, and speech is our natural tool.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?