-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.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Unconstitutional in this thread means

You are not focusing on the purpose of free speech.

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 give...what are the three?

1. to share information vital to survival.
2?
3?

Do you have a larger body of work I can read about this?
Thanks

This thread has what is needed now

These are logical natural law roles that free speech plays in a human society which has a constitution.

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

It is so simple, that what we need, is communicated very quickly IF we can believe what we read. Common sense works for that. Writing much on it is only appreciated by a few history, psychology, sociology, legal buffs and for conclusion, lots of inference and critical thinking is needed. It all works on the fly just as well.

In fact, such demonstration is very informative relating to the usefulness of the information.

BTW, this is the basis for a new political party that converts the political paradigm of parties, to one of principals. An appropriate name would be the "Principle Party".

Of course it must be formed of people and they must understand the principals, so here I am writing in response to 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?

thanks

You obviously have something of value to contribute. I appreciate it, and it makes perfect sense.

What is the significance of this understanding? What should come of it, other than a deeper understanding for the need of freedom of speech?

Article V, Our First Right Needs Free Speech

You ask good questions:-)

Article V is the only way we can escape an unconstitutional congress, senate, president and court.

Abraham Lincoln said in 1859, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court". He could only have been talking about Article V.

In order to conduct Article V properly, or all amendments having constitutional intent, America must prepare. Ending the abridging of free speech is first enabling Americans to unify in their states and make their states constitutional.

The next preparation is securing the vote. The diebold issue cannot exist in American democracy.

The last needed preparation to an Article V is campaign finance reform. The citizens united thing made it clear. Article V is the only way out of that. movetoamend.org is ridiculous asking congress to amend and cut of their access to unlimited campaign funds from corporations.

The "Principal Party" has "alter or abolish" as a first right and principle and "Preparatory Amendment" of three amendments addressing those issues is a part of the prime principals a candidate must support to get a vote. The principal party can logically vote for any candidate.

After that starts Article V, no amendments occur until America has designed a test of itself to ascertain that it can define constitutional intent to its own satisfaction. Then a general convention may safely proceed.

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 speach

The purpose of birth. The purpose of freedom. Its mine I was born with it. The purpose of my individual free speach is my private property, my buisness. My life is mine I am not property or possesion.

sovereign

Yes, but what is the purpose of free speech, the greatest one

The one that makes free speech a right?

Can you accept that generally in America the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital for survival is shared?

Do you recognize how that respects the right to our lives under law?

Do you recognize that such purpose enables unity and defense of the contract granting the right?

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?

No, No, and No.

Granting. BS nobody grants me anything. Contract NO WAY I have entered into no contract. There are those so called implyed contracts they are BS. Contract to me means all parties agreement. Not one party making claimes implied and the other party not in agreement. That is dictatorship.

sovereign

Can you escape your constitution-I think not

Of course if you expect no rights, you won't be invoking your rights.

But they are there and what grants them IS recognized by millions of people. Maybe you do not need them or your rights. They are willing to agree and fight for theirs with you for yours, but only if they understand the purpose of what they are fighting for.

Do you know the purpose of free speech?

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 dont have to escape any constitution

My rights come from the fact that I am. I was born with the right to freedom. It did not come from a constitution. So because the constitution enforces my natural birth right of freedom makes them in compliance so why would I need to escape any of my birth rights?

sovereign

Natural law is instinct - The constitution is natural law

If we need help assuring they are respected, we must join with others and claim the same right in defense of its recognition, acceptance and provision.

The constitution is natural law, but it is also written law and the contract which is supposed to control those who, now it is seen, would violate your rights.

Our American counter parts are paying all kind of taxers to empower those supposedly controlled by the constitution. It is only by our continued confusion, and failure to claim our right in unity, that they become compromised. When they are so simple a child can understand them, why is an adult reticent to admit how well the ideal of the constitution and its intent protect us and go towards creation of the unity 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?

Claim your right in UNITY?

Look im involved in a leaderless rovolt. Yet unity can be acomplished without group think top down dectatorship leadership. I do not need a constitution. If some set of documents help others to realize what I claim as my individual laws/rights/birthrights, then great. If a constitution is helpful to keep tyrant cowards/bullies in check well great. My observation is that there is only 2 ways to deal with coward/bullies. 1. Knock them out or die trying. 2. Avoid them.

sovereign

I know about that and it is not rational, nor accountable

And there is no plan. It is designed to abuse and use up the right to assemble in useless actions as well as make activism, appear lame.

The demands are real, but no one involved really needs to see them met. They have an agenda of system replacement, but are not using channels so invoking major division and opposition rather than lawful, peaceful rebellion towards poorly stated goals.

There is so much censorship at their forum, I don't bother posting any longer.

Very sad misleading.

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?

It is the cornerstone of civility.

I am assuming you were expecting an honest answer here. Free speech allows human beings to reason together and thus avoid physical violence. It allows a scope of understanding that defies narrow interests. But more importantly, it gives all individuals the empowerment of their autonomous assertion. Without that freedom there can be no existence of a "free state".

I will cede that manipulations of trust, cultural landscapes and lexical context may have reduced this ability to near-zero within our society, but the purpose is still there.

Excellent-Your philosophical context is exactly right

But not broad enough.

Consider this. Indigenous Americans had a doctrine of natural law which was recognized by the framers in part, but intense competition kept it out. It was removed from the writings of the framers and others concerned. This is why letters were found so often in old attics, so that competent forgeries could replace them omitting the vital information. What we have in the first amendment is only 30% and the remaining 70% fits exactly with your post. The doctrine was called the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech".

From free speech an understanding can be gained. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It was kept out of the DOI, promised with other rights for inclusion in the 1787 constitution, then again promised to the 1792 BOR, but no-it was kept out them removed from written history. I learned it from a Michigan Indian, Gregory Baker, R.I.P.

Now it is all but forgotten-Look what a state our appreciation for communication amongst ourselves is in simply regarding the purpose. Let alone our first constitutional right, which is not free speech.

Notice, not one poster has a clue of what I'm talking about with regard to 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?

Mr. Brown . . .

The response I gave does not get any broader. The fact that the framers of the Constitution willfully omitted a broad language concerning freedom of speech only solidifies its purpose, but that purpose also changes within a collective society that is led by the reigns of Hegelian absolutes. This is what makes understanding forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love impossible - even with an alleged guarantee of free speech, none of these objects have any set values that can be defended. Especially regarding the first right that the Constitution truly grants "We the People" - the establishment of justice seems to be fatally flawed for that very reason. But you must consider the fact that whatever meaning you or I have regarding the context of forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, et cetera, is an abridgement, being that we are not the total some of We.

If you are hinting at the fact that our first "Constitutional Right", being that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - the beginning of the First Amendment - is a relief against the degradation of the purpose of free speech, I agree. It is the primary freedom of personal faith that rejects the Hegelian absolutes and maintains values. It does not guarantee that those with perverted designs revolving around an organized religion cannot manipulate the context of personal meaning covertly, but it should guarantee that those parties be brought to justice when and if exposed.

1st Amendment Not Our First Constitutional Right

"If you are hinting at the fact that our first "Constitutional Right", being that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - the beginning of the First Amendment -"

No, I'm asking if you know what our first constitutional right is and you've stated it is the first amendment and you are wrong. The Bill Of Rights, 1792 follows the 1787 Constitution which codifies or right to "alter or abolish" (DOI 1776) as Article V.

Now, do you think Americans have a right to share information vital for survival? Can we logically call that the "purpose of free speech"? Do you think that doing so expresses constitutional intent?

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?

It does not take the

It does not take the rewriting of the Constitution to exonerate someone like Snowden or Manning, if that's what you're trying to imply regarding "shared information". It does not take "starting over" to decry the abuses of the NSA. It does not take a new perspective on "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to argue cessation, either. It takes a restatement of personal values. If you're looking for a last straw, look to your friends or family - they are it. If you're looking for something new and fresh to fix the mess we're in, that simply does not exist. If you're looking for the truth without the understanding that certain people have of language, you're looking for an angry mob. That is the meaning of the Republic.

On topic please - the purpose of free speech

Now, do you think Americans have a right to share information vital for survival? Can we logically call that the "purpose of free speech"? Do you think that doing so expresses constitutional intent?

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 supplied the purpose -

I have already supplied the purpose. You concluded that it was correct but that somehow it still disagreed with your context. Now you feel the need to remind me to stay on topic . . . ? Laughable! What is the purpose of this post but to amuse yourself? Exactly.

If you want to write your own Constitution, please feel free. Many people write manifestos - that is a great place for you to start. Feel free to establish your own code of natural law as you have inferred the nature of your being - but, you have failed to establish any reason whatsoever here as to why anyone needs to understand "your free speech" any further than what has been set before us all. What needs to be addressed now is how We the People need to restore justice undone to the context of a document so many feel is "outdated" simply because they do not understand its true scope. That is my freedom of speech, and yes - I do believe I am expressing Constitutional intent in saying so.

So you say, but it was lost in rhetoric

I know I've asked you maybe 5 times if you think Americans should be able to share information vital to survival and if doing so demonstrates constitutional intent.

This is basic biological, phylogenetic DNA of social interaction-the purpose free speech needs to serve in a human community. You do not need rocket science for this. IN FACT, bringing it in is unconstitutional because it is counterproductive towards using information that the masses can use.

Accountability means a clear answer.

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'm talking about the purpose of free speech not the framers

"The fact that the framers of the Constitution willfully omitted a broad language concerning freedom of speech"

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?

Are you catching on C.R.C.? Arguing on the minutiae of what is written is meaningless once the intention is revealed. WIth this method, the mistakes of the past are understandable and correctable by us, the people.

Do you like that idea?

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?

Oh yes, I have caught on Mr. Brown.

When I said, ". . . whatever meaning you or I have regarding the context of forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, et cetera, is an abridgement, being that we are not the total some of We . . .", that should have been obvious. This is not minutia, this is an elaboration of context. It had nothing to do with the framers themselves. There is nothing "defective" regarding the Constitution or its Amendments as they stand. Surly as an educated man you are aware of the fact that what you have espoused by saying, " Arguing . . . is meaningless [until] the intention is revealed. WIth this method, the mistakes of the past are understandable and correctable by us, the people." is Hegelian dialectics, the very reason the Constitution seems to be flawed to you now in the first place! Intention is already revealed. It is not that what it says is flawed. The value of what it says is gone for society. THAT is the real crux of the problem.

Accountablity to intent is how we defend our constitution

Americans need to put defense of the constitution first. Without knowing its intent, we cannot define when the constitution is being compromised. Do you propose we get the minutia all arranged then not agree on the purpose while the constitution is not competently defended?

Again, let me ask differently this time relating to the philosophical, natural law principals underlying our social contract; is it in your interest that the people should share and understand information which is vital to survival?

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?

Convoluted question.-

Because your questioning is so convoluted, you have missed my answer entirely. Of course the Constitutional right to free speech was intended to allow people to share information vital to survival. Recheck my affirmation that individuals such as Manning and Snowden were upholding their constitutional right, and that violations of the NSA are unconstitutional. The system we are living in was the genesis of your question, even if there is another issue you had in mind pertaining to your question. Perhaps I did not hit the exact nail you were vaguely pointing toward. I expected that type of understanding, and I should not have. I apologize.

Thank you, simplicity is the key to unity

A plain statement is awesome.

"Of course the Constitutional right to free speech was intended to allow people to share information vital to survival."

Speaking of convoluted, I think I agree. "Recheck my affirmation that individuals such as Manning and Snowden were upholding their constitutional right, and that violations of the NSA are unconstitutional."

But I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

And I think you acknowledged that Article V is our first constitutional right, when you suggested I seek to rewrite the Constitution.

With a simple agreement between Americans, you will be very surprised at the authority we can summon and how little literal interpretations of documents mean when we do agree.

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 have my sympathy.

Simplicity is the key to a mob's unity, not the unity of mankind. Human beings are complex in their nature, regardless of their education or IQ. The simplicity you were asking from me is to simply "agree", yet I do not.

My original statement outlines that free speech is used to ". . . [allow] human beings to reason together and thus avoid physical violence. It allows a scope of understanding that defies narrow interests." This is no less simplistic than your stated passing of information vital to survival, put into terms that focus on individuals rather than in general. "In general" does not describe individuals. When my logic seemed to fail to amuse you, it became convoluted - that is the reason I had to question what lay beneath your initial question. I could not understand what it was you were getting at, beyond confounding what had already been stated. Thus, I assumed you were trying to champion something besides your pride. I have already apologized for my assumption. But I must say again, if you believe in a "broad" definition of an individual freedom, I want no part in whatever Constitution for Dummies handbook you may be trying to write.

By the way, the guarantee of justice is the first verbatim right that the text of our US Constitution provides, not amendments (or Article 5) as you keep asserting. For, "We the People of the [US], in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That is not something I ever want to see abolished or rewritten simply because it does not make sense to a mob.

But I do thank you as well for your civility.

Justice is no longer, that is why Article V is needed.

but it will take preparation to do it well. Free speech, secure the vote, and reform campaign finance.

"By the way, the guarantee of justice is the first verbatim right that the text of our US Constitution provides, not amendments (or Article 5) as you keep asserting. For, "We the People of the [US], in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That is not something I ever want to see abolished or rewritten simply because it does not make sense to a mob."

Of course the treason that that is taking place could not get started and stay secret if justice was not defeated. I think it is partially defeated because the officials that will see justice done are being isolated and fed a false picture of reality, which excludes all of the info needed to understand the treason.

The statement I prefer, is preferred because children can more readily understand it and it is more universal to other issues, environment for example. Although this is correct, it is not comprehensive enough to protect life in our situation.

"ree speech is used to ". . . [allow] human beings to reason together and thus avoid physical violence."

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?

No purpose required

No purpose required

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Yes, all speech is allowed

Yes, but when the greater purpose is involved the speech is publicly supported.

This is the spirit of PBS and public access television. They however do nothing near enough to compensating for the abridging.

Unfortunately, Americans have been led to think that because all speech is allowed, it is all the same.

Such thinking is a serious generalization, a distortion, and it was actually taught in schools BECAUSE our constitution does not contain the social purpose of free speech simply defined enabling society to honor what is good rather than bestowing their support for all of it. It is all freely done, and thats the minimum public support. There is no maximum when it meets this criteria.

From free speech an understanding can be gained. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

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?