What is free speech?

"Free speach"=a former inalienable right under the Constitution (former) now over ruled by the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc. See list of words no longer safe to use in airport, on phones, or here............

 

As much as you are trying to convince everyone that you have a monopoly on the "truth", arrogant snobbery is far from it. It only proves you don't have a clue.

 

Article 13

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.

Unfortunately HR 347 did just that; now it's illegal to protest the government, around the government. Thanks to OBAMA...

So what is Free Speech? Temporarily dismissed...

 

Ok i posted true information
you posted a negative reply
I posted a negative reply
you posted another negative reply
i just posted the facts

I WIN :2thumbsup:

 

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you in the face. Someday it will.
Your opinion is not truth or fact.

You won? Like in Iraq, what did you win?

 

No. It gives them the right to say whatever you like without being arrested or otherwise penalized by the government. That's it.

 

I was protesting the Iraq war in 2006 in Wash Dc and collected over 6000 signatures from people offering condolences to the Iraq people for what our government was doing to them..




your all talk

 

Talk is free speech. It's talk like mine that exposes the moronic war in Iraq. Again, what did you win?

 

what did you do to stop the war in Iraq?

 

Look at the forum guidelines - in particular No. 6.

If you are saying you can say whatever you like wherever you like - regardless if it is 'on topic' - fair enough. Ironically, it's not up to either of us to decide.

Are you suggesting 'free speech' is about 'telling the truth'?
I think you might have delusions of grandeur. *chuckle*.

 

Where is the 'respect' with 'free speech' regarding others's 'space'
There is a way without stepping on another's toe to do it
Isn't there?

I feel I do have the 'right' to choose to 'speak' an I try to do so with 'respect'
As so do the 'other' have the 'right' to 'speak'

Hopefully, in the same 'manner' of 'respect'

 

The thing is according me, it is good to have a freedom of speech but it should be limited for the sake of freedom peace. Some people can utter word that can cause to public riots or invoke others.

 

freedom of speech doesn't mean much if people don't do anything to make their words meaningful.

Yes people who just want to incite anger for something untrue should be held accountable. Kinda like GWBush who incited the american public to go after Iraq.

Hey here is a very indepth detailed history of the cabal / illuminati etc etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFfdOkwyuL0&feature=related"]NWO: Secret Societies and Biblical Prophecy Vol. 1 - YouTube

I like this form of free speech because it leaves it up to the individual to do something to make the changes needed and not a mob

 

Ok the short version;
in the good ole days, people were "openly" put into "status" classes known as their "state" or value in society. In the case of land it was real estate.

Now you had commoners and the nobility.

You had slaves with iron shackles around their ankles and slaves with sworn to serve the lord franchise collar around their neck.

That went on all the way up to the monarch who of course in those days considered themselves God with none or one higher, at least no human.

Now ya gotta uses the words of the day, if you dont use the same ingredients great great great great great great great great great grandpa used you simply cannot have the same tasting pie that he had now can we.

That said



you can see that a freeman had a contract with his government.

it was (and still is today)




American Blacks Law Dictionary;


Now "free" speech was originally set up for the house and senate floor of government and had nothing to do with us low life ignorant commoners!


If I remember right among other references you can find that in the articles of confederation, or maybe in the establishment of the united colonies of america previous to the AoC.

 

The thing is that people, in the US, have paid for the ‘right’ of free speech with their ‘right’ to liberty, have been hounded for their political views. For example the socialist Eugene Debs was sentenced in 1918 to ten years in prison and had his ‘right’ to vote taken away from him for life. His crime was speaking up against the administration of President Woodrow Wilson and US involvement in WWI.

How the sedition act worked and the true worth of the first amendment is explained by Howard Zinn talking of the first Sedition act of 1798 (page 100 – A Peoples History of the United States)

“This act seemed to directly violate the First Amendment. Yet, it was enforced. Ten Americans were put in prison for utterances against the government, and every member of the Supreme Court in 1798-1800, sitting as an appellate judge, held it constitutional.

There was a legal basis for this, one known to legal experts, but not to the ordinary American, who would read the First Amendment and feel confident that he or she was protected in the exercise of free speech. That basis has been explained by historian Leonard Levy. Levy points out that it was generally understood (not in the population, but in higher circles) that, despite the First Amendment, the British common law of "seditious libel" still ruled in America. This meant that while the government could not exercise "prior restraint"-that is, prevent an utterance or publication in advance-it could legally punish the speaker or writer afterward. Thus, Congress has a convenient legal basis for the laws it has enacted since that time, making certain kinds of speech a crime. And, since punishment after the fact is an excellent deterrent to the exercise of free expression, the claim of "no prior restraint" itself is destroyed.

This leaves the First Amendment much less than the stone wall of protection it seems at first glance.

*
And the thing is that the action against such people as Debs was supported by many Americans, especially those on the right who claimed to be champions of American ‘freedom’. As to the ‘free press’ "far from opposing the measure, the leading papers seemed actually to lead the movement in behalf of its speedy enactment."

 

Then it isn't free speech.

 

This. Popular and "safe" speech doesn't NEED a 1st amendment.

 

Because the SCOTUS ruled that money is free speech, the rich have more rights than the poor. So the government should make sure we all have the same amount of money, so we all have equal rights.

 

You know that could be just the angle we the people need to argue against Citizens United.

The rich surely wouldn't like that. It might get them to back down.

 

Hey, if we all had the same amount of money, there would be no need for welfare.