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.

Regardless of any moral issues, which I admit are debatable, lets look at when our freedoms of speech began to be restricted.

• 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.

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"?

Regardless of any moral issues, which I admit are debatable, lets look at when our freedoms of speech began to be restricted.

• 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.

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"?

Regardless of any moral issues, which I admit are debatable, lets look at when our freedoms of speech began to be restricted.

• 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.