Comment: Let's Clear This Up.

(See in situ)

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