Amendment I:
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.
It is often stated that "inciting to violence" is against the law. But no where in the First Amendment is there an allowance to make any law that restricts any speech whatsoever. In fact it explicitly states the opposite.
I used to think this was a perfectly reasonable compromise, now I am thinking that is not true. There is a difference between instigating acts of violence through speech, and doing acts of violence. The second is obviously illegal, but the lead up? Why exactly? Isn't that like the "Precrime division"? Perhaps more important, it is from this restriction that all other "socially responsible" restrictions stem.
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
Every single one of these was after the NWO had taken complete control of our country (1913). For the first 130 years no speech was restricted, as per the Constitution. Since Congress couldn't pass laws to restrict speech, it looks like they turned to the other branch of government to do it for them.
The First Amendment suggests that those who wrote the Constitution determined that 100% free speech was an inalienable right so important that they needed to state it explicitly, and any restrictions on it are a subversion of those inalienable rights.
It’s not a “human right.” It is a constitutionally protected right for Americans. Globally operating corporations are not exempt from US law for US citizens.
late 14c., "unrestricted, free from limitation; complete, perfect, free from imperfection;" also "not relative to something else" (mid-15c.), from Latin absolutus, past participle of absolvere "to set free, acquit; complete, bring to an end; make separate," from ab "off, away from" (see ab-) + solvere "to loosen, untie, release, detach," from PIE *se-lu-, from reflexive pronoun *s(w)e- (see idiom) + root *leu- "to loosen, divide, cut apart."
Sense evolution probably was from "detached, disengaged" to "perfect, pure." Meaning "despotic" (1610s) is from notion of "absolute in position;" absolute monarchy is recorded from 1735 (absolute king is recorded from 1610s). Grammatical sense is from late 14c.
Absolute magnitude (1902) is the brightness a star would have at a distance of 10 parsecs (or 32.6 light years); scientific absolute value is from 1907. As a noun in metaphysics, the absolute "that which is unconditional or free from restriction; the non-relative" is from 1809.
When you go to confession, what do you get? Absolution?
In this sense free speech is absolute! It is unrestricted, complete, however, not all speech is free from imperfection. But that is what human speech is, the way we employ it, and the words we use.
The development of meaning is exemplary of this.
Is free speech the most high right? No. Liberty is the most high right. No human right is above this, as an overall right.
Free speech is "just" part of a complex of rights connected to our properties: speech, vision, hearing, sensing, smelling, tasting, thinking, movement, traveling, transmuting, associating, etc, are all consequences of human properties.
Free speech, however, is fundamental to a vibrant, resilient body politic engaged in the biggest experiment in self governance.
Accepting this designation of absolute, is plain stupid. Do not get suckered into their swamp language, as the word absolute is not found in the declaration of independence, Bill of Rights, or Constitution.
The left is simply employing a sophistry hoping for your stupidity. The same with sensible gunrights. Their is only one, the 2nd A.
Having a corporation is not an absolute human right either.
When the Federal Government seizes Facebook under executive order for collusion in the fraudulent election... remember that.
Anyone who thinks that should shut their mouths, because I feel like it's hate speech. (I think I have their false rhetoric down...)
It is often stated that "inciting to violence" is against the law. But no where in the First Amendment is there an allowance to make any law that restricts any speech whatsoever. In fact it explicitly states the opposite.
I used to think this was a perfectly reasonable compromise, now I am thinking that is not true. There is a difference between instigating acts of violence through speech, and doing acts of violence. The second is obviously illegal, but the lead up? Why exactly? Isn't that like the "Precrime division"? Perhaps more important, it is from this restriction that all other "socially responsible" restrictions stem.
Regardless of any moral issues, which I admit are debatable, lets look at when our freedoms of speech began to be restricted.
Every single one of these was after the NWO had taken complete control of our country (1913). For the first 130 years no speech was restricted, as per the Constitution. Since Congress couldn't pass laws to restrict speech, it looks like they turned to the other branch of government to do it for them.
The First Amendment suggests that those who wrote the Constitution determined that 100% free speech was an inalienable right so important that they needed to state it explicitly, and any restrictions on it are a subversion of those inalienable rights.
IT IS IN USA GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION
It’s not a “human right.” It is a constitutionally protected right for Americans. Globally operating corporations are not exempt from US law for US citizens.
This didn't come from some faceless person. Her name is Helle Thorning Schmidt. These individuals need to be held accountable.
U wot m8?
Then get out of our country is my response to that!
Try shutting me up. I dare you!
Tell that to Twitter when they got banned from a country.
The FUCK it isn't!!!!
Note the development in meaning:
absolute (adj.)
late 14c., "unrestricted, free from limitation; complete, perfect, free from imperfection;" also "not relative to something else" (mid-15c.), from Latin absolutus, past participle of absolvere "to set free, acquit; complete, bring to an end; make separate," from ab "off, away from" (see ab-) + solvere "to loosen, untie, release, detach," from PIE *se-lu-, from reflexive pronoun *s(w)e- (see idiom) + root *leu- "to loosen, divide, cut apart."
Sense evolution probably was from "detached, disengaged" to "perfect, pure." Meaning "despotic" (1610s) is from notion of "absolute in position;" absolute monarchy is recorded from 1735 (absolute king is recorded from 1610s). Grammatical sense is from late 14c.
Absolute magnitude (1902) is the brightness a star would have at a distance of 10 parsecs (or 32.6 light years); scientific absolute value is from 1907. As a noun in metaphysics, the absolute "that which is unconditional or free from restriction; the non-relative" is from 1809.
When you go to confession, what do you get? Absolution?
In this sense free speech is absolute! It is unrestricted, complete, however, not all speech is free from imperfection. But that is what human speech is, the way we employ it, and the words we use.
The development of meaning is exemplary of this.
Is free speech the most high right? No. Liberty is the most high right. No human right is above this, as an overall right.
Free speech is "just" part of a complex of rights connected to our properties: speech, vision, hearing, sensing, smelling, tasting, thinking, movement, traveling, transmuting, associating, etc, are all consequences of human properties.
Free speech, however, is fundamental to a vibrant, resilient body politic engaged in the biggest experiment in self governance.
Accepting this designation of absolute, is plain stupid. Do not get suckered into their swamp language, as the word absolute is not found in the declaration of independence, Bill of Rights, or Constitution.
The left is simply employing a sophistry hoping for your stupidity. The same with sensible gunrights. Their is only one, the 2nd A.