-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.

Let's Clear This Up.

With Respect, if I may?
I’ve read the comments and your replies. I even found your page explaining “the greater meaning of free speech”.
This will be a multifaceted comment addressing, well, several things.

But, I think it will clear things up for you, sort of set you straight. And hopefully show the DP’ers where you’re coming from without the round ‘n round this thread has become.

First, my answer to your question regarding the purpose of free speech is based on the elaborations within the Federalist Papers which were written as a ‘framers guide’ to the Constitution. I know you agreed it is accurate, if not complete.

However, you attempted to force feed the phrase “The general purpose of free speech is to share and understand information vital to survival.” Every chance you got. By itself, the statement is reasonable and true. But I believe you use it as the major philosophical premise leading us to the remaining two minor ones; 2). To enable unity amongst the people and 3). Unity for defense of the Constitution.
These are noble, but flawed when used to describe the meaning of free speech as it is written in the Constitution. The distortion stems from your misinterpreting the Constitution for the United States as being a guide for social interaction between we Citizens, and/or between us and the Government.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Constitution is not a social contract. And was never intended to be. Despite what or whoever taught you it is.
There was a reason the framers did not use the first part of the “Greater Meaning of Free Speech” (As you’ve written it: “From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love” … etc) in the Declaration, or in the Constitution itself. They were defining themselves as Sovereigns and placing restrictions on the newly formed Government in an effort to insure they remain so. The Constitution is the Government’s rule book. Not a social contract. Not an expression of what may come if a certain philosophy is integrated into the DOI.
The Laws that were enacted by the States (and subsequently adopted by their counties and towns). Those are intended as a social contract. To make known what we as a people expect from each other regarding our behavior; socially, morally and to benefit the common good of man and woman kind. As well as crimes and their punishments.

I believe you think if the balance of the "Greater Meaning" is added as an Amendment, that somehow this magic phrase will change everything. -
Everyone will become good and honorable. Corporations will no longer be considered a person. And, it will allow access to all knowledge and information that, heretofore, has been hidden away from us.

You are aware of current affairs, yes? This administration, like the one before it, is blatantly ignoring the Constitution! Eroding our rights, which are acquired at birth, despite the protections specifically written within that document we call, “The Law of the Land”, that prevent them from doing so. And, still they continue.
I’m sorry to be the one to tell you, but the introduction of the Greater Meaning into the Constitution as an Amendment would be meaningless.

"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

I see your point, however the constitution protects itself

All of the laws against treason demonstrate this meaning that a primary right, generally must have that purpose also.

This really is about the ideals of the constitution and our grasp of the best intent of the framers despite their various divisions and alliances. It is not about the errors and omissions it carries.

This is about human beings not record actions on paper.

If Americans decide in a majority that free speech exists to share information vital to survival, and that unity in defense of the constitution in order to prevent tyranny from threatening their live, it is s very good thing.

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?

Again, you're mixing your philosophy with their intent

There is a reason the framers specifically narrowed the definition of Treason:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Remember, it is all about individual rights. Everything they included (and, more importantly, omitted) was to limit the scope of Government power to rule the individual. The people were to have freedoms that were denied under English Law. Having lived under that rule, they knew the consequences of arbitrary governmental power. So, in this 'new' Constitution, they wanted a specific and permanent definition of what treason is, the only acceptable means of proving it, and the limitations on the punishment for it.
When adopting the words in Article III, as with many concepts put forth in the Constitution and laws governing the United States, they went back to English Statutes which defined those things known as Common Law. And, equally were deliberate in omitting those definitions that the King considered treason; the language of 'compassing' or 'imagining,' which was used in English doctrine to describe 'constructive treason.' Those laws were very often abused and became an effective method of dealing with political opponents to the King and those in power. Not to protect the country from an enemy.
Look, you're making it too complicated -
Americans simply need to recognize, in a majority, they already have the power to halt the actions of this oppressive government and rise up to address it - Using the original intent of the Constitution.

This would be the better thing, yes?

Without the distraction of a philosophical concept that adds nothing to the authority already provided.

Yeah, nice idea. Although impractical. And,
Decidedly foreign to the Constitutional framework ...
But, it would make a good bumper sticker!

"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

Because free speech is abridged you don't know these things

are happening now or how they are happening.

"There is a reason the framers specifically narrowed the definition of Treason:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.""

And the republic is what supports individual rights. It is formed by the constitution. You do not know how grieviously the constitution is compromised. You only know what alt media, the web allows to be promoted and MSM transmits.

You do not know that the courts are now concealing treason, but they are. I can show you.

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?

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?

On the contrary

You assume much for someone who knows nothing about me. I am a well informed individual. The alt media is only the start of how deep I'm in the rabbit hole.
I know more about the 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court' (often misnamed as the FISA Court) then you ever will.
I learned about it's existence back in 2002 when an article in the New York Post said the FBI lied to the Judges of this secret court - FISC - about a bunch of cases regarding surveillance.
I bet you only found out this year, huh?
How many Judges rule over the FISC?
Eleven.
Are they lifetime appointments?
No. The term of each Judge is 7 years.
That's just what is in the public record. There is way more undisclosed info if you know where to look.
There are lots of sources on the web less traveled, and better ways to search it then with Google or any of the commonly used search engines.
So, don't tell me I do not know how bad it is.
That I am unaware of this usurper Corporation, which began its rule with the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Which entered into the Congressional Record a Corporate Charter called The Constitution of the United States, replacing the original, living document called the Constitution for the United States of America.
That when you look up everything related to the United States Government on Dun & Bradstreet Business Report they are all listed as corporations. Every office held in every branch of the US government. That includes every State, county, city and town. There is a reason the city border has a sign that says, (for example) Los Angeles Corporate Limits, or Corp Limit.
It's all about revenue.

So, you were saying? Oh, yeah - I don't know nothing. LOL
As ole Bugs would say (Like my rabbit hole reference?)
"What a maroon!"

You could pass a Constitutional Amendment tomorrow that states:
The Government and all of its branches and agencies MUST disclose everything they are doing.
That all media must tell the truth, always.***
The internet must not ever be scrubbed of information by aforementioned agencies or their subcontracted employees.

Guess what? Nothing will change. If you think it will, then it is YOU who knows nothing, dude.

*** In February 2003, a Florida Supreme Court unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF
TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV, v Jane Akre
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/13108...

Listen, I know what it is your striving for. We all want full disclosure, open communication and the kind of free speech you refer to.
We do have ways to be informed. but, you have to work at it. Long and hard, sifting through disinformation, uncovering unprotected PDF files or documents and yes, using Alternative news sites.
But, your solution is, well, not viable. And would be ineffectual at stopping the criminals in Government.
You think your way will make it easier for us to get that information.
Makes me think you're lazy and want some to do the work for you.
You can stomp you feet and yell this notion of yours out to the entire country for all to hear ...
But you'll be ignored. And, any interest to the idea will swiftly be forgotten.

It isn't a matter of free speech.
It is the multinational corporations systematic dismantling of our Republic, and their push to transform it to a Fascist State under Oligarch rule.
We're already informed.
We need action, NOT a definition of free speech.
What a ridiculous idea.

"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

I don't get the question.

There is no "purpose" for free speech.

There is a "purpose" behind any effort to censure, but there is no purpose for free speech.

The purposes for censure are usually ...

1. Control.
2. Money.
3. Altruism.

God Bless.

In natural law - Things examined for higher purpose

when constitutional context is taken.

Please, allow an expansion of terms. Speech enhances our survival because it allows cooperations and organization. That is a form of control, but if it is controlled by other than those needing it for survival, it leads to abuse. Enter corporate MSM.

As an American seeking to defend the constitution and restore constitutional government, I can say that to unify Americans we need to get back to terms that are correct which children can understand. I cannot find a simpler and more generally correct definition of the purpose than the "The higher purpose of free speech is to assure information vital for survival is shared and understood."

That notion is constitutional and something the people can start with to become "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts."

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 think I get hung up on the word "purpose".

Maybe if you substituted it with "right" or "ability" then it would make more sense to me.

God Bless.

Academia taught it was all the same = no purpose|Wrong!

This is an ancient doctrine of natural law which encircles very positive social attributes which originate in human instincts. Speech which works towards gaining a social understanding, can create; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It comes from the Iroquis Confederacy and was too powerful for the people to be included in the 1776 DOI. Part of the framers stood with English power. Accordingly, the DOI only had the last 30%. not the social philosophy which supported it.

Look at us.

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 think I understand a single word you just wrote.

Are you writing in english?

Medical, psychological fact-cognitive processes an reading

When speaking or listening cognitive processes of the left brain are always involved. Reading and writing might involve only the right, intuitive brain.

People who understand my speech fine, tell me I write like I speak. Accordingly if there is something in the unconscious mind which makes a difficulty accepting a concept, or something associated with it. Comprehension will suffer.

This is perhaps why freedom of speech is abridged on media and activism is relegated to the web where cognitive infiltration may be more effective.

I can provide you with a link stating the medical history this is based in if you do not believe this.

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?

People speak all the time for not a single purpose.

I talk to myself, outloud, all the time, when nobody is around.

Sometimes I speak to teach skills.

Other animals speak.

I don't get it. What is the point?

Censure is the action that needs a motive.

Speaking does not.

The point is which speech is not just free

But supported publicaly.

The Indigenous people would accommodate speakers to find causes that would improve their lives with info and concept. Our public television is elite like MSM. Accordingly, we are going to see the loss of Americans lives increase, and have been seeing it for awhile.

It is the people's way to get information to the masses. Today, it needs careful consideration because democracy will not work well without 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 point is Americans need to be able to unify

And defend their constitution.

I just explained in another post that if you found yourself in a housefull of people and discovered a fire. The purpose of your speech, a warning, would be immediately confirmed by everyone leaving.

In your scenario the laws only prevent the insane bully from trying to censor you. Your position is that there is only a rule stopping the bully. About the time people smell smoke, the bully gets his ass run over as the people try to get out .That is human instinct.

You are leaving out our instincts and that the constitution is based in natural law, which equates to our social instincts.

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?

An example of a purpsoe ...

does not a deductive rule make.

If a group of people are encased in a tomb with no possible means of escape and there is a fire ... and you yell fire ....

There is absolutely no purpose to your speech other than instict.

So what?

Who cares?

I say again, speech serves no specific purpose.

Censure has intent and therefore must contain a purpose.

God Bless.

When that purpose is survival, thinking

People deduce that it is time to agree and join others to defend ourselves from tyranny.

Only in that agreement is the power found, which is needed to protect our lives.

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?

Speech has the purpose of enhancing our survival

Free speech creates commonly held perception and opinion of how we should cooperate and organize for enhancing our stability in survival to the point where we evolve.

Your artifice creating an unnatural situation defeating all effort to protect life making a waste of speech is noted.

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 is implicit in the definition.

Free speech is the unrestricted expression of, communication of thoughts. It is a right in a free society because in a free society we own ourselves and since our minds and our thoughts are part of us we may use them as we please so long as we do not commit aggression against others with them.

The ability to communicate with others is an instrument in the development of and protection of rights; this is the political purpose.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Excellent definition of what free speech is

but it's highest purpose is not stated, however it is implied there

A direct statement of purpose is needed. And, as I've said, children need to be able to 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?

Yes, real purposes of free speech

The general statement of purpose is one that can be understood by children.

The purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

When a right is understood and shared well by children, it's very difficult for an official or politician to pretend they do not understand.

The complexity invites selectivity, misinterptetation and misdirection. We can use the complexity with our interface to government and ourselves, but we need the simple definition that a child can understand then accept.

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?

Cause we can't get paid for it? No, seriously though ...

To protect the 4th Estate; The Press. Well, the old school press, I mean.
Before it was bought up to be the State propaganda arm, the press used to keep tabs on the three branches of Government as well as all it's agencies and branches. It kept an objective watch; ready to investigate and expose any corruption, immoral behavior, delusions of grandeur, etc on the part of the elected servants of the people.

To protect 'unpopular' speech and the speaker who is saying it. Because, more often than not, popular speech is the flag waving, apple pie eatin' masses going along with the "party line". And, we know (as did our founders) the party line reflects where the party(The State)wants the Country to go - which usually is the opposite direction of what is good for the people and/or country.

To protest! To march on Washington (or wherever applicable) and make the Government understand that we know it has gone off rail - And we don't like it. We need this option when the serving electorate, who were sent there specifically to prevent the Government from infringing on our rights, have ignore their constituency and allowed it to happen on their watch. (whatever 'it' is).

Sounds just about right, ya think?

"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

Right on topic-detailed social purposes of free speech

However, the general definition covers our needs philosophically and allows each person to expand it to fit the purposes before them.

The general, natural law purpose of free speech is to share and understand information vital to survival.

Your addition of right to assemble is vital as well. What is required to see the purpose of free speech manifest, our second constitutional right, is that we use our first right, Article V.

There is no way MSM and congress are going to do anything other than what they have been doing without Americans forgetting their petty differences and standing together in defense of the intent of the constitution.

The people are the only ones that can do it, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts.". He could only be referring to Article V. Here is a draft of the revised 1st Amendment which will manifest constitutional intent. Note how the freedom of the press is directed. See the posts here about the principal party and preparatory amendment.

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.

EXISTING:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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?

Fart biscuits.

There's your answer.

Pandas eat bugs.

SteveO24's picture

To post any

and everthing I choose here on the Daily Paul?

It is free

To prevent its prohibition.

What purpose made it so important?

And why isn't that stated somewhere ?

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?

Prior to, and even during,

Prior to, and even during, the enlightenment, there were all sorts of persecutions based on heretical speech, treasonous activity against whatever despot ruled whatever European land, and so forth. The colonists weren't exactly dealing with a full deck with King George I, either. He could have avoided the revolution in a number of ways if he had given some concessions to the colonists. Nevertheless, thousands of years of history and brutality express this. I think if you study linguist and political thinker Noam Chomsky's ideas on this you will find some interesting and thought provoking theory into the evolution of language and how it is used, today, for manipulative purposes.

Yes, but what about the function of the Iroquios confederacy?

And the the natural law philosophy that started the emphasis on free speech and assembly, what about 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?

All language is a form of manipulation

It is the intention that distinguishes it and makes it acceptable.

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?

My ability to express myself

trumps whatever delineations you choose to place upon my speech, spoken, written or otherwise.

If you want to express what you've come across as the 'truth behind free speech', just offer us what your research has guided you to believe. But to say if 'Americans', as if freedom of speech is strictly an American phenomena, don't know 'this', whatever that 'this' is, then we are somehow ignorant (which is what your subject infers)- well, that's a jump in the wrong direction.

Your first sentence makes no sense to me. What does 'unconstitutional' mean in that sentence? Oh, don't bother. If you really had something to say you would have just said it instead of playing a game.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison