All laws against the First Amendment, including these laws, were put into place in the past century. They did not exist for the first 150 years of our country. They were put into place by the Cabal (post 1913, like most such acts of fuckery) to justify censorship. No such laws have ever been made "un-illegal". Once in place, they remain, and government censorship only increases over time.
It seems reasonable that halting words that are intended to incite violence, or words that are threatening, should be restricted action. However, words are not deeds (except when they are, like actual mind control). There is no reason to restrict any speech. If someone commits an act of violence, then the action is illegal because it is an infringement on another person's Inalienable Rights. But the threat of violence (as words), can't possible harm someone.
For example, If someone is threatening violence towards me in words I will likely ignore them. I may walk away, or try to talk them down, whatever; situation dependent. Sometimes those words are accompanied by walking towards me, or making other threatening gestures. That is a completely different beast. In that case it is not the words that are the problem, but the physical threats. Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me. Therefore, words can't be an infringement of my Rights, no matter what those words are (excepting again, actual mind control, though that is usually accompanied by being tied in a chair and being drugged, i.e. physical actions).
With regards to the first exception to 1A in 1919(ish), where inciting a mob was made illegal; it seems so sensible. We don't want mobs.
Except sometimes that's not necessarily a bad thing. This country was founded on exactly such speeches. In 1919 it was made illegal to make the exact same speeches that created our country. No fuckery there I'm sure.
Not that that is important, because its not the words that are the problem, but the action that comes next. Preventing speech is a Pre-Crime Division. There is no crime in any speech, because there can be no infringement of Rights in any speech. It is only the actions that may or may not come after the words where Rights infringement can occur.
All laws against the First Amendment, including these laws, were put into place in the past century. They did not exist for the first 150 years of our country. They were put into place by the Cabal (post 1913, like most such acts of fuckery) to justify censorship. No such laws have ever been made "un-illegal". Once in place, they remain, and government censorship only increases over time.
It seems reasonable that halting words that are intended to incite violence, or words that are threatening, should be restricted action. However, words are not deeds (except when they are, like actual mind control). There is no reason to restrict any speech. If someone commits an act of violence, then the action is illegal because it is an infringement on another person's Inalienable Rights. But the threat of violence (as words), can't possible harm someone.
For example, If someone is threatening violence towards me in words I will likely ignore them. I may walk away, or try to talk them down, whatever; situation dependent. Sometimes those words are accompanied by walking towards me, or making other threatening gestures. That is a completely different beast. In that case it is not the words that are the problem, but the physical threats. Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me. Therefore, words can't be an infringement of my Rights, no matter what those words are (excepting again, actual mind control, though that is usually accompanied by being tied in a chair and being drugged, i.e. physical actions).
With regards to the first exception to 1A in 1919(ish), where inciting a mob was made illegal; it seems so sensible. We don't want mobs.
Except sometimes that's not necessarily a bad thing. This country was founded on exactly such speeches. Not that that is important, because its not the words that are the problem, but the action that comes next. Preventing speech is a Pre-Crime Division. There is no crime in any speech, because there can be no infringement of Rights in any speech. It is only the actions that may or may not come after the words where Rights infringement can occur.
All laws against the First Amendment, including these laws, were put into place in the past century. They did not exist for the first 150 years of our country. They were put into place by the Cabal (post 1913, like most such acts of fuckery) to justify censorship. No such laws have ever been made "un-illegal". Once in place, they remain, and government censorship only increases over time.
It seems reasonable that halting words that are intended to incite violence, or words that are threatening, should be restricted action. However, words are not deeds (except when they are, like actual mind control). There is no reason to restrict any speech. If someone commits an act of violence, then the action is illegal because it is an infringement on another person's Inalienable Rights. But the threat of violence (as words), can't possible harm someone.
For example, If someone is threatening violence towards me in words I will likely ignore them. I may walk away, or try to talk them down, whatever; situation dependent. Sometimes those words are accompanied by walking towards me, or making other threatening gestures. That is a completely different beast. In that case it is not the words that are the problem, but the physical threats. Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me. Therefore, words can't be an infringement of my Rights, no matter what those words are (excepting again, actual mind control, though that is usually accompanied by being tied in a chair and being drugged).
With regards to the first exception to 1A in 1919(ish), where inciting a mob was made illegal; it seems so sensible. We don't want mobs.
Except sometimes that's not necessarily a bad thing. This country was founded on exactly such speeches. Not that that is important, because its not the words that are the problem, but the action that comes next. Preventing speech is a Pre-Crime Division. There is no crime in any speech, because there can be no infringement of Rights in any speech. It is only the actions that may or may not come after the words where Rights infringement can occur.