Christopher A. Brown

Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

But I have already pointed out that the meaning of free speech in the constitution, given the legal meanings of that day, may not have anything like the libertarian meaning applied today. So relying on the constitution, insofar as one would apply the "original intent" doctrine at least, may not be a very good safeguard.

With respect to arguing it from a natural law point of view, I agree that what you are attempting here fits into that category, but I am suggesting that such an approach is filled with potential loopholes which would allow people to justify infringements of free speech. This is natural. There must necessarily be qualifications to almost any sentence we could contrive that fills less than a page. But I would also be concerned about the principle that you have proposed could easily be abused to justify suppression a bit too much. It comes down to who should judge the case. I think that issue has to be dealt with at the same time as the issue of free speech is being considered.

Posting on an iphone limits the amount of quoting that can comfortably be done. I saw this below, from your post, but could not get into trying to reply in depth, because this is a very pertinent question. The answer/solution applies to your latter post quoted above.

Originally Posted by boneyard bill

With respect to the constitution, what did the term "freedom of speech" actually mean when the constitution was written? How could John Adams, who was part of the process of ratifying the Bill of Rights propose the Alien and Sedition Acts after having been part of that process?

Firstly the true environment of the framers creation of the constitution is not well understood, because some important factors are missing.

The relationship with the Iroquis Confederacy Six Nations is rarely understood, and less often shared than the colonist framers. The site I've been using has changed so I've found the story somewhere else. Chief Canasatego of the Iroquis was key to bring Adams, Franklin and Jefferson together.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...owtopic=210687

That meeting is a part of history barely shared at all, but it was critical. The reason for this is racism, or religion, plain and simple. There are still those of power that refuse to carry the truth in media, or even allow it for very long, meaning that story is one of the few, but there were many others that existed before such information was heavily targeted in the framers personal writings. Mention of very deep philosophical concepts that created the unity with the framers upon the prime principals are very hard to find.

Here is the only mostly complete of the 13 arrows concept being brought to Franklin in 1744,
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6.../EoL/chp6.html

I happen to have gotten one vital item of the Native philosophy directly from an Indian from Michigan, Gregory Baker. He was speaking from his oral history, which he admitted was not his usual level of spirituality, but said he fully accepted and understood its functionality. It was termed "The greater meaning of free speech".

It is a sociological philosophical doctrine that is quite deep with some of humanities most profound instincts that empower survival and adaptation through enabling cooperations across natural differences by bringing common human purposes forth.

From freedom of speech an understanding can be created. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As you can see only the last 30% made it into the Declaration of Independence. That is how intense the competition was from Empire influence amongst the groups and states.

We can see that in 1776 the right to alter or abolish was with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By the time the constitution was being written, "alter or abolish" was converted to Article V, giving power over the constitution to ratification of 3/4 of the states to escape the power of a corrupted congress or court. We can see that by 1792, the Bill of Rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness had been separated from free speech. Fracturing the sequence of meaning of principle that was naturally carried.

The idea is that all speech is allowed, but not all speech is equal. The principals of the greater meaning are publicly supported to emphasize the cooperation between people as the foundation of strength and security. This is the original structure. When societies are deprived of that, then harsh conditions develop and speech is limited to prevent distraction from lifesaving activities.

To see a draft revision of the First Amendment that would correct the deficiencies adequately, see this thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...95#post5446595