-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.

Speech is free because

Speech is free because nothing gives anyone the right to silence me. A better question is, what is the purpose of encumbered speech?

The Lakota had no word for "me" or "I"

It was "us" and "we".

The best answer is humanity using communication for survival and evolution.

Our Constitution is the closest thing on the planet and only we can make it better. But we must understand the higher purposes of free speech to defend it.

This effort is to create a group that can say, "We know that free speech assures vital information is needed for survival". Since we've been made dependent on corporations via corporate personhood, we need the economy they depend on. At least until we can re-find enough independence to not be threatened in this way.

The immense lack of vital information of the public in areas of; psychology, anthropolgy, semiotics and the academic pursuits themselves relating to behaviors indicates that Americans must find stable ground to agree upon.

Our constitution has it because it works with instincts we all have IF we consider the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" to be something we need in our constitution. We do that because this thread has shared a simple concept of the highest purpose 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.

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 most all Native dialects were the same

They had no concept of what greed was until the Christian Anglos came. They never took more than they needed at the moment.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Excellent answer. Why should anyone have to justify

their inalienable rights?

Shouldn't the burden always be on the infringer?

There is one answer that covers them all.

"The pursuit of truth, which can only be approximated by assimilating the expressions of diverse opinions."

But why truth? Because truth is needed to make decisions

that truly protect life.

Through free speech, the truth can be discerned by the many as they see the sincerity needed to simply accept that the fundamental general purpose of free speech is to assure information needed for survival is shared and understood, then continue with reason to expose the truth from the layers of deception heaped around 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?

Does this diversity include the strategic placement of nonsense?

I couldn't help but wonder - how many people were eagerly waiting for the "Supernova" to be detonated in June or July of this year?

http://www.dailypaul.com/285936/the-interim-phase-of-quantum...

This, of course, is a right protected by the guarantee of free speech. When there is no ability to reason independently, however, that freedom loses its meaning, not its purpose.

If you continued to follow the site rather than looking for an

an excuse to belittle me, you might actually learn something. Instead, I guess you will be contemplating your smugness and stupidity over multiple lives for the next 26,000 years. Seems like a just solution to me.

I would never steal your Modus

I was not belittling you - your post made a good point for my argument. Thanks.

Very thoughtful, insightful - dilution of cognitive domain

by useless information. Correct but useless.

The alternative is "Useful Information". Information for what? Now it is values and priorities.

Life in this nation must be protected reasonably and unconditionally with absolute priority. Now it's down to, "How do we determine our priorities".

Our perceptions of conditions set a great deal of it within common knowledge. Therein is the deadly abridging of free speech we suffer with DILUTION and INFILTRATION of false concepts and distorted terms which are tossed around a false group as if it were real.

Any who point out it is false become a target and no vital issue is addressed by the attackers. No accountability on the interweb.

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 about accountability?

I predicted the NDAA would be applied to kill or unlawfully imprison by anywhere from April to June, 2013. Aaron Scwartz dies in a mysterious suicide WHEN? Michael Hastings dies in a mysterious car fire WHEN? Two former professional snipers are killed WHEN?

As I said, you read the STANKOV UNIVERSAL LAW website, you will find SCIENTIFICALLY rational explanations, not the religious dogma that so often appears on this websites. Christians have been looking for "The Second Coming" since 70 AD.

As for "common knowledge," anyone who has been following Dr. Paul knows that he rarely deals in "common knowledge". Besides, I at least have the decency to submit my "far out" material under Off-Topic or religion. Nobody is forced to read it. However, I will ALWAYS respond to disrespect in what I feel is an appropriate manner. THAT is accountability.

As for the information being "useless," believing that many things are going on that are not readily apparent is VERY useful, as it prevents one from taking rash actions; or, as so many DP responders due, ridicule, bitch, compromise principle or do absolutely nothing.

The abuse of jargon is not scientific or rational,

and has led you to confuse who you have posted responses to. But I do have an honest question for you, Bob. What is the difference between the holon and sgut? As a disciple of Stankov, can you explain this difference for me? And what are their relationships to orgone? Does this have anything to do with the 5th and 6th dimensions, which are an actual and scientific study in thermodynamics? Just curious. Thanks.

What about priorities of the republic?

Diversity could be dead because it forgot to prioritize opinion.

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 priorities of the republic?

Sounds like a pretty lame excuse for censorship.

What damages liberty, particularly free speech is "killing the message" because you strongly disagree with some of the messenger's beliefs. Should we reject environmentalism because Hitler was a green? Should we reject Martin Luther King's or JFK's messages because both were serial adulterers?

Substitute "the needs of the state" for the "priorities of the republic" and you would sound just like every tin pot dictator who ever lived.

Agreed-Cognitive distortions are what you describe

And the cognitive infiltrations employing exactly the tactics you question, use distortions extensively.

All it takes is 3 or 4 posters in these false groups and just about any concept is thrown into question by the uninformed mind.

I have a software concept for a forum that sorts posts by poll responses that can defeat this. All that needs to be done is sincere posters always use text and facts to justify their poll responses which is what is naturally done by the sincere anyway. It should help that situation. There is a .pdf you can download.

http://algoxy.com/poly/poll_to_post.html

Looking for programmers, coders.

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 number one purpose for free speech.

3. So that people think they have a say.
2. So degenerates can cuss in public.
1. So the truth gets lost in a chorus of lies like a needle in a hay stack.

Ridicule here is unconstitutional

We do not need redundant descriptions of the unconstitutional state of affairs.

Your action is one that works towards the loss of our rights, our freedoms and maybe 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?

You could rename your post

"Can anyone guess what's Christopher A. Brown's opinion on the freedom of speech because he thinks his opinion is right and everyone must play his guessing game to make him feel good about himself."

I really think you do not understand the proper usage

of the word "unconstitutional" or what it means.

I also think you imagine that anyone who doesn't reply according to your own preset and very limited scope is thus "working against you."

On the contrary, no two people think identical thoughts.

Get over it.

You might learn something.

I state it as a truth.

I have come to the belief that the bill of rights is just a ruse to make people accept governance.

I hope you are being a bit sarcastic. If not then I also object to your indignant, yet ignorant, supposition that pointing out the truth is somehow detrimental.

What purpose does the state have for restricting free expression

?

Free includes debt-free!

Cyril's picture

Answer:

What purpose does the state have for restricting free expression?

Answer:

That purpose is anything that the (wanna-be almighty) state sees fit.

That's the essence of the Superman Idea :

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G063

But, of course, you knew that already. ;)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The purpose of free speech-Why is it constitutional intent?

The dumbing down started when the human attributes that promoted the principles of the republic, were not defined enabling clear government support for them.

There is a purpose for free speech. To assure information needed for survival is shared and understood. The thread is not about what was or does not limit free speech. It could be, but the purpose must understood and accepted first so the priority of the abridgement is clear and its remedy traceble.

There are very positive human attributes which can be invoked by free speech, fully supporting "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The republic needs to promote that free speech which inspires those attributes from the people which protect the principles. Lacking the clear definitions provided by the Iroquis confederacy, writings removed from history, the republic flounders in corporate usurpation of the public collective awareness.

Free speech is not our first constitutional right. It is needed to use our first right, so it is a vital, primary right for preservation of the constitution.

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 have not read Bastiat. He produces sound arguments.

Thanks, Cyril, for that taste.

Which work is your favorite?

Free includes debt-free!

Cyril's picture

A must read :

A must read :

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basHar.html

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

"Economic Harmonies"

"Economic Harmonies"

Check it out.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The easiest, shortest answer

The easiest, shortest answer is "To help prevent tyranny." Might be too simple an answer though.
Really this is kinda an extension of the post below me.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

How does free speech oppose tyranny?

It enables unity and defense of the constitution.

The constitution is a conceptual social contract that is a shield against tyranny.

But that is not going matter if Americans do know what their first right is, and so far no one has mentioned it.

Here is a clue. It is the first right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

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?

A sincere and very close guess to 3rd purpose

1) To assure information needed for survival is shared and understood.

2). To enable unity amongst the people

4). Unity for defense of the constitution

The constitution is a conceptual shield against tyranny.

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?

Kilroy was here

I don't know why I seem to be on some neanderthal vibe, but the images of cave paintings came to mind, and then grafiti, cultural rights. The protection of cultural rights. I see the Constitution as terms of force, and the bill of rights protecting us from that force.

You have the right to remain silent also comes to mine.. broken thoughts.. interesting thread.