Problems and contradictions: Reflecting on "Words are (not) violence", the '1A', '2A', and concepts of free speech vs censorship.

No-Designation Man

Kingfisher
Other Christian
If any physical response is used to counteract offensive language, then it is admitted that words are violence. The person/group administering the correction has put words on an equal level with the physical. And with words put on an equal level with the physical, then it is admitted that words can harm as much as physical blows, which means that words are violence.

As an aside, if the 1A is taken as absolute, even disciplining the words of your own children with corporal punishment is a violation of that document.
'The 1A is not absolute!' Then did not the '1A' just became invalid?

'We can't allow kids or adults to just spew out unfiltered language!' Biblically, I agree with this - the '1A' becomes invalid.

The argument that 'Free Speech is not without consequences!' eliminates free speech. If speech has consequences, then it is restricted speech. Whether it is punished afterward, or muzzled beforehand with threats, restricted speech is not "free", nor can it ever be such - the '1A' becomes invalid.

'Well, you can't just say whatever you want!' Biblically, I agree with this - again, the '1A' becomes invalid.

Must not censorship of any kind, by any person, invalidate that person's claim about supporting the '1A'?
'But we can't allow "anything/everything goes mentality" speech. That leads to chaos and perversion!' Biblically, I agree with this - the '1A' is invalid.

The Alt-Right's fervor in defending free speech doesn't come without an ironic twist, that being the '1A' (in fact, the entire constitution) 'was written by (and for) a populous with a substantial different mindset and value system and societal structure then what exists today' - therefore this why the 1A cannot be applied (any longer) as an absolute (at least for some), therefore censorship is justified against CRT, trans propaganga for children, or any other (Leftist) speech the Alt-Right doesn't like. A new problem arises: If the Alt-Right's claim about the '1A' is correct, this means the 1A is open to 'interpretation' and further ammendments (which, indeed, it has continually been). And if one constitutional ammendment can be 'interpreted' then that means ALL of them can. The Left's arguments against the '2A' no longer being an absolute also becomes correct, as the '2A' also 'was written by (and for) a populous with a substantial different array of armaments and weapon-types and societal structure then what exist today.'
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" must now also be open to 'interpretation'.

This^ now presents quite the paradox-problem in of it's own; BOTH ideologies must be correct, or BOTH ideologies must be wrong. Ironic how both sides attempt to introduce there own private interpretations as to what the Founding Fathers meant. So either the '1A' becomes invalid, with the '2A' remaining as an absolute; or the '2A' becomes invalid with the '1A' remaining as an absolute. There is no dancing around the either/or that must be applied, which, in turn, raises yet another unavoidable dilemma: If '2A' is needed to determine the power of '1A', then it is admitted that Force will dictate to whom the '1A' is selectively applied, or denied - meaning the claim that '1A' is an inalienable right' has always been fraudulent ( - the 1A is invalid), and also words are violence as they must be controlled with a physical threat or response. Words are violence only if the 1A is not absolute; words are not violence only if the 1A is absolute.


Free Speech must be absolute, otherwise it is Controlled Speech. The religions of the Left and the Alt-Right are currently battling-it-out for who gets that ultimate Control. The Left openly hate the "1A" yet still want it for themselves; the Alt-Right claim to cherish the "1A", but want it taken from everyone but themselves. Both groups are hypocrites, but some (very limited) credit must go to The Left in being more honest with their hypocrisy.

The "1A" must be accepted in it's entirety as an absolute, or dismissed completely. All political religions have no right to demand what they do not want to grant.

For the record, I (OP) do not and cannot support the concept of '1A'. (Matthew 15:11, James 3:1-6)
 
Last edited:

Number one bummer

Kingfisher
Other Christian
Gold Member
As an aside, if the 1A is taken as absolute, even disciplining the words of your own children with corporal punishment is a violation of that document.
'The 1A is not absolute!' Then did not the '1A' just became invalid?

The First Amendment applies to state actors. So no, a parent punishing a child is not within the scope of the First Amendment.

If any physical response is used to counteract offensive language, then it is admitted that words are violence.

Being assaulted for saying something does not mean your words are "violence." If you tell a mentally challenged panhandler that you will not give him money and he attacks you, I don't see how you committed violence against him.

I think you are confusing the Fighting Words Doctrine with mitigating circumstances, which again only applies to state actors and expanded the First Amendment.

The Alt-Right's fervor in defending free speech doesn't come without an ironic twist, that being the '1A' (in fact, the entire constitution) 'was written by (and for) a populous with a substantial different mindset and value system and societal structure then what exists today' - therefore this why the 1A cannot be applied (any longer) as an absolute (at least for some), therefore censorship is justified against CRT, trans propaganga for children, or any other (Leftist) speech the Alt-Right doesn't like.

I personally have not seen the "alt-right" calling for the government to ban private citizens from speaking about tranny mania, CRT, or anything else. Publicly elected school boards determining school curriculum is a non-sequitur in terms of whether or not teachers are indoctrinating kids with CRT.


The Left's arguments against the '2A' no longer being an absolute also becomes correct, as the '2A' also 'was written by (and for) a populous with a substantial different array of armaments and weapon-types and societal structure then what exist today.'
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" must now also be open to 'interpretation'.

I think this is conclusory as constitutional interpretation is method dependent. Even if a living document leftist justice found that one amendment was being interpreted incorrectly, they would still need to justify the other amendment on its merits.

For the record, I (OP) do not and cannot support the concept of '1A'. (Matthew 15:11, James 3:1-6)

You do realize that without the First Amendment you could be compelled to follow a state religion, right?
 

No-Designation Man

Kingfisher
Other Christian
Being assaulted for saying something does not mean your words are "violence." If you tell a mentally challenged panhandler that you will not give him money and he attacks you, I don't see how you committed violence against him.
I did not understand your response at first, but then I looked at my original wording:
"If any physical response is used to counteract offensive language, then it is admitted that words are violence. The person/group administering the correction has put words on an equal level with the physical."
Bad sentence structure. There should have been a semi-colon after the "are violence" and before the "The person/group". The point I was making was that the person who uses a physical response against words equates words on the same level as 'the physical' (whether justified, or not).

I take full responsibility for poor grammar skills in the OP not making my intended thought clear.

I think you are confusing the Fighting Words Doctrine with mitigating circumstances, which again only applies to state actors and expanded the First Amendment.
This is the second time you have used the term "state actor" with regards to how the constitution can be applied. I admit not knowing this particular phrase. Did a brief lookup tonight before responding; I must educate myself further. From what little I've gathered (so far), I will
ask a question. It's not meant to be snarky or confrontational, but I don't know if the words should be appropriate since it's a severe attack on someone else's character. Is it okay in the 1A for a certain group of 'regular' citizens to call a State Actor (Joe Biden, for example) a "pedophile" (which I've seen those comments a lot), but not okay for a State Actor (Joe Biden, again for example) to call a certain group of 'regular' citizens "domestic terrorists"?

I personally have not seen the "alt-right" calling for the government to ban private citizens from speaking about tranny mania, CRT, or anything else. Publicly elected school boards determining school curriculum is a non-sequitur in terms of whether or not teachers are indoctrinating kids with CRT.
I personally have. In addition, the Alt-Right have put tranny-mania, CRT (and a lot of other Leftist ideology) spoken by private citizens in the catagory of Groomers, child abusers and many other 'less-then-flattering labels', openly calling for these people to be executed (and using some quite pronounced methods at that). The Right and the Left are using quite the 'strong' language against each other, and both sides want to silence the other. One side will eventually get its totalitarian win.

"Publicly elected" shows me where the problem truly lays. As an aside, Evolution has been taught the prominent (or only) 'theory' in public education across the States; blasphemy is more serious then CRT. (Note: Not trying to 'Red Herring' this portion of your comment with my 'aside'; I just find it interesting that's there's so much other foolishness in public schools over the years that is just as serious, but only now is the 'get your kids home-schooled' really gaining widespread advocacy/momentum - should have been done long ago.)

I think this is conclusory as constitutional interpretation is method dependent. Even if a living document leftist justice found that one amendment was being interpreted incorrectly, they would still need to justify the other amendment on its merits.
"interpretated incorrectly [or correctly]". Who gets to, or perhaps more to the point, who should get to decide what that interpretation is?... on any part of the constitution. The "living document" idea is what I'm trying to get at here; once it is allowed that one part can have the "living document" concept applied to it, then that opens the door allowing for all parts to be subjected to that. And, for this reason, it is fair that all parts should be subjected to that concept (which is what is happening now).

You do realize that without the First Amendment you could be compelled to follow a state religion, right?
Indeed I do.
And in the near future, myself (and many others) may die as martyrs when the 8th King institutes its World Religion.

It's unfortunate that over the decades and decades, the Constituents have challenged/counter-challenged/demanded/relied upon the Supreme Court so much to make almost endless 'interpretative' decisions. Whatever intended spirit of the original law that may (or may not) have existed behind the original Bill of Rights when it was created has been lost due to a continually weakening populace who need never-ending micro-managing details (and enforcement) with respect to 'laws' and 'rights', since the collective whole is morally bankrupt.

Thanks for your input, N o b, you've given me several things to consider further.
 
Last edited:

OrthodoxLaity

 
Banned
Orthodox
The First Amendment applies to state actors. So no, a parent punishing a child is not within the scope of the First Amendment.

Being assaulted for saying something does not mean your words are "violence." If you tell a mentally challenged panhandler that you will not give him money and he attacks you, I don't see how you committed violence against him.

These 2 statements are contradictory.

You said parents can use corporal punishment on a child for saying offensive words but a "mentally challenged panhandler" cannot assault you for saying "no" when he asks for money.

Neither of these 2 examples are state actors so the "mentally challenged panhandler" should be able to assault you for saying something he did not want to hear.

No person can use physical coercion to control your speech because that would be assault.

And you cannot say that it is self-defense because self-defense is defined as the use of violence to protect yourself, another person, your property, or another person's property, from a physical threat.

In under no other circumstances can you legally use violence.
 

Number one bummer

Kingfisher
Other Christian
Gold Member
Is it okay in the 1A for a certain group of 'regular' citizens to call a State Actor (Joe Biden, for example) a "pedophile" (which I've seen those comments a lot), but not okay for a State Actor (Joe Biden, again for example) to call a certain group of 'regular' citizens "domestic terrorists"?

The simple answer is that both parties can say whatever they want, they only run afoul if the opposing party can show that defamation was committed, and the court offers an injunction against the defendant from speaking further. This question goes beyond the scope of 1A and involves justiciability and defamation law.

Biden is what the law would consider a public official/figure, this means in order for him to recover against a person or entity, he must show that the claim was made with actual malice. Actual malice is a VERY high standard and is difficult to show. Furthermore, statements of opinion do not give rise to a valid claim of defamation. There are of course plenty of other reasons politicians do not go around suing private critics, but the fact is it is very hard for a public official to show that a party is defaming them.

As far as Biden criticizing a group, it would depend on the size and makeup of the group. In general, the law prevents groups from suing for defamation unless they are small enough and the statement allows a person to identify who was being referred too. One reason for this is that the victim of defamation must show they were harmed. However, if Biden criticizes a specific person, the plaintiff will have to show the normal elements of defamation which is easier when actual malice is not required.

Who gets to, or perhaps more to the point, who should get to decide what that interpretation is?... on any part of the constitution. The "living document" idea is what I'm trying to get at here; once it is allowed that one part can have the "living document" concept applied to it, then that opens the door allowing for all parts to be subjected to that. And, for this reason, it is fair that all parts should be subjected to that concept (which is what is happening now).

A bad judge is a bad judge, I guess I was just saying in my OP that you are right about the result but not how the ruling will be made. Cunning pragmatic judges will make decisions based on emotional and esoteric arguments rather than trying to draw parallels to other rights. The current court has an originalist majority, so I think 2A is safe from such rationale for now.

You said parents can use corporal punishment on a child for saying offensive words but a "mentally challenged panhandler" cannot assault you for saying "no" when he asks for money.

Neither of these 2 examples are state actors so the "mentally challenged panhandler" should be able to assault you for saying something he did not want to hear.

No person can use physical coercion to control your speech because that would be assault.

I think we are missing each other here.

A parent has the right to discipline their child, the 1A does not give a child to say whatever they want to their parent. The same way a protester does not have the right to speak on private property. 1A is only infringed when the government is restricting speech.

My point with the panhandler hypo was that words are not violence, and the panhandler will never be justified in attacking you.
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
If any physical response is used to counteract offensive language, then it is admitted that words are violence.
Words can be violent. I consider someone screaming profanities angrily to be violent and hostile.
But of course this is semantically different than physically harming another person. What is the distinction you are making here, other than labelling two different behaviors with the same word?

This seems to be a False Dilemma Fallacy, pretending we have only two options: Treat bad speech exactly the same way we treat violent physical acts, or ignore both.
As an aside, if the 1A is taken as absolute, even disciplining the words of your own children with corporal punishment is a violation of that document.
This is a misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights, which was an afterthought of the US Constitution set up to confine government to a smaller role than it was initially authorized to have, and confusing that with acceptance of immoral behavior.

In fact, the founders set up the system we had precisely with the goal of *BETTER* countering things like lying, blasphemy, etc. because they thought this was the most effective way to control them, not because they wanted anarchy or loved to hear people curse.

The founders were essentially all monotheist / deists, if not Christians, and would all agree, for example, that lying is a dishonest and immoral thing that they all opposed wholeheartedly. The 1st A. stated that lying is not something the government can fine or imprison you for. To say that the founders were ok with lying is a misunderstanding of their principles and values, and indeed of the purpose of the bill of rights itself.

Likewise with issues of blasphemy, which most people in recent history were disgusted by, our founders did not view government as the appropriate authority to combat it or punish those committing it. To assume they were ok with blasphemy because they specifically said punishing blasphemers is not the role of government is completely wrong.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to avoid a giant all powerful leviathan government that regulated all parts of life and society. In fact, I would argue that they were *SO* opposed to things like lying, blasphemy, etc., that they specifically left these particular issues OUTSIDE of the realm of government so that they would be *BETTER* controlled. They understood that totalitarian states, in the end, fail at achieving their goals.

A small government, which basically just coined silver and gold money, paved streets, and imprisoned thieves and murderers, was most likely to create a society with strong social, religious, and ethical systems which created the healthy environment they wanted to live in. If they thought a giant USSR type state could achieve those goals, they would have created a giant police state. But they felt that a system with competing institutions, a state, a church, a family, a community, a trade union, etc. would better address the vast array of societal issues than having one giant government entity attempt (and fail) to address them all.

For example, they left religion free from government because they wanted a stronger religion, not a weaker one. Remember, their religious beliefs were one of the main reasons they formed a new government in the first place.

Their goal of preventing a leviathan state has failed, of course, but that's another matter.

As for the rest of the post, I do not understand the point the OP is making. There are a mishmash of truthful observations but what is the conclusion or the claim? Can you restate this in a logical form like:

Premise A
Premise B
Premise C
Therefore, I conclude Claim X.

The absolutist arguments about free speech are a False Dilemma Fallacy, framing society as if we can only exist in either a state of pure unadulterated speech of all types, or of strict, regimented speech and beliefs, when in fact we exist somewhere in between.
 

OrthodoxLaity

 
Banned
Orthodox
The absolutist arguments about free speech are a False Dilemma Fallacy, framing society as if we can only exist in either a state of pure unadulterated speech of all types, or of strict, regimented speech and beliefs, when in fact we exist somewhere in between.

It is absolute because freedom of speech is an unalienable right, which means that it cannot be infringed under any circumstances.
 

OrthodoxLaity

 
Banned
Orthodox
I think we are missing each other here.

A parent has the right to discipline their child, the 1A does not give a child to say whatever they want to their parent. The same way a protester does not have the right to speak on private property. 1A is only infringed when the government is restricting speech.

My point with the panhandler hypo was that words are not violence, and the panhandler will never be justified in attacking you.

The parents can discipline their child by cutting off their allowance or refuse to buy their kids stuff that the kids want because it is their money and they can choose what to do with it.

But violence can only be legally used in self-defense against physical threats to yourself, another person, your property, or another person's property.
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
It is absolute because freedom of speech is an unalienable right, which means that it cannot be infringed under any circumstances.
One could argue it *ought* to be so, but that is not how things are. Pornography, threatening language, obscenity, fighting words, even "hate speech" are all things that are "infringed" upon by governments. We also have "free speech zones" where they try to cordon off protestors and put them in out of the way locations and pretend they are still being allowed to air their grievances.

Anyway, the only inalienable rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (and "inalienable" doesn't guarantee you will have those things, just that the government is legally prohibited from taking them; it still takes them if and when it wants to).

Then of course there is the issue that the freedoms supposedly protected by the first amendment are not achievable due to non-state actors acting as obstacles. The freedom to assemble, for example, is very difficult when social media companies prevent you from organizing, banks prevent you from financing, employers prevent you from earning wages, lodging companies prevent you from renting rooms away from home, and payment processors prevent you from even purchasing, because you hold views they disagree with.

I still don't understand the point. That we *should* be free to say whatever we want? Please make an argument, not an observation.
 

Optimus Princeps

Woodpecker
Orthodox Catechumen
There's a lot of misinformation here. The First Amendment with regards to freedom of speech is not absolute. Incitement/advocating for unlawful action, obscenity, fighting words, and libel have all been found to not be protected, and of course there is nuance to all of those and you'd have to get into the case law to see what is and is not protected.

As established in Brandenburg, merely hateful or offensive speech is protected. As is criticism of war, policies, and existing laws- Masses. Flag burning has also been established as free speech by Texas v. Johnson.
If any physical response is used to counteract offensive language, then it is admitted that words are violence.
That is called fighting words and is not protected. The test used is when men of common intelligence would understand the words to be likely to cause an average addressee to fight. An example when this would occur is if there is a large crowd and an immediate danger that certain words would cause a clear and present danger.
If any physical response is used to counteract offensive language, then it is admitted that words are violence. The person/group administering the correction has put words on an equal level with the physical. And with words put on an equal level with the physical, then it is admitted that words can harm as much as physical blows, which means that words are violence.

As an aside, if the 1A is taken as absolute, even disciplining the words of your own children with corporal punishment is a violation of that document.
'The 1A is not absolute!' Then did not the '1A' just became invalid?

'We can't allow kids or adults to just spew out unfiltered language!' Biblically, I agree with this - the '1A' becomes invalid.
Again it's never been absolute and it's pretty established what it applies to. Regardless, 1A is not just freedom of speech, it also gives freedom of religion, freedom of the press and peaceful assembly. I would really suggest reading up a lot more on it in order to be more informed of your rights under it.
 

Optimus Princeps

Woodpecker
Orthodox Catechumen
However, content-based free speech, which means speech that the state attempts to regulate based upon its content/message, is absolutely protected when it is attempted to be regulated based upon offensiveness or simply the fact someone doesn't like it. So the gov't cannot just say, like they do in Germany, that Holocaust denial is illegal, as this would be restricting free speech based upon the underlying message.
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
Optimus, correct, they rely on publishers, websites, payment processors, and others to make sure you don't talk about the Holocaust, transsexualism, etc.

End result is the same, just like "legal immigration" vs open borders making the USA a majority nonwhite country. One is constitutional, one is not, but that is semantics only.
 

Optimus Princeps

Woodpecker
Orthodox Catechumen
Optimus, correct, they rely on publishers, websites, payment processors, and others to make sure you don't talk about the Holocaust, transsexualism, etc.

End result is the same, just like "legal immigration" vs open borders making the USA a majority nonwhite country. One is constitutional, one is not, but that is semantics only.
Yeah and ideally with obvious tech monopolies they should be prosecuted for infringing upon this or broken up by antitrust laws.
 

No-Designation Man

Kingfisher
Other Christian
Words can be violent. I consider someone screaming profanities angrily to be violent and hostile.
But of course this is semantically different than physically harming another person. What is the distinction you are making here, other than labelling two different behaviors with the same word?

This seems to be a False Dilemma Fallacy, pretending we have only two options: Treat bad speech exactly the same way we treat violent physical acts, or ignore both.
Are we allowed to use a physical response to someone's words? If words are considered bad enough to get a physical response, then are not words put on the same level as being a physical act in of themselves? If the answers are "yes", then should censorship (among other restrictions on speech) not also be allowed?

Does a black man have the right to physically punish a white guy, by punching him in the face, for openly using the slur "nigger"?
Does a white man have the right, by hiring cops/lawyers/judge to 'punch' in his behalf, to physically punish a black man for openly using defamation?

Public labelling someone/insults/libel/gossip/defamation/hate speech/etc, it's all the same thing - an attack on someone else's character.
Whether you respond with your fists, or hire someone else to physically punish in your behalf, the end result is still the same; words have been put at the same level as if a physical blow was initially dealt, thereby justifying a physical response. What happened to the "grow a thicker skin" and "Sticks and stones..." I've been hearing bandied about by others all these years?
This is a misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights, which was an afterthought of the US Constitution set up to confine government to a smaller role than it was initially authorized to have, and confusing that with acceptance of immoral behavior.

In fact, the founders set up the system we had precisely with the goal of *BETTER* countering things like lying, blasphemy, etc. because they thought this was the most effective way to control them, not because they wanted anarchy or loved to hear people curse.

The founders were essentially all monotheist / deists, if not Christians, and would all agree, for example, that lying is a dishonest and immoral thing that they all opposed wholeheartedly. The 1st A. stated that lying is not something the government can fine or imprison you for. To say that the founders were ok with lying is a misunderstanding of their principles and values, and indeed of the purpose of the bill of rights itself.

Likewise with issues of blasphemy, which most people in recent history were disgusted by, our founders did not view government as the appropriate authority to combat it or punish those committing it. To assume they were ok with blasphemy because they specifically said punishing blasphemers is not the role of government is completely wrong.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to avoid a giant all powerful leviathan government that regulated all parts of life and society. In fact, I would argue that they were *SO* opposed to things like lying, blasphemy, etc., that they specifically left these particular issues OUTSIDE of the realm of government so that they would be *BETTER* controlled. They understood that totalitarian states, in the end, fail at achieving their goals.

A small government, which basically just coined silver and gold money, paved streets, and imprisoned thieves and murderers, was most likely to create a society with strong social, religious, and ethical systems which created the healthy environment they wanted to live in. If they thought a giant USSR type state could achieve those goals, they would have created a giant police state. But they felt that a system with competing institutions, a state, a church, a family, a community, a trade union, etc. would better address the vast array of societal issues than having one giant government entity attempt (and fail) to address them all.

For example, they left religion free from government because they wanted a stronger religion, not a weaker one. Remember, their religious beliefs were one of the main reasons they formed a new government in the first place.

Their goal of preventing a leviathan state has failed, of course, but that's another matter.

As for the rest of the post, I do not understand the point the OP is making. There are a mishmash of truthful observations but what is the conclusion or the claim? Can you restate this in a logical form like:

Premise A
Premise B
Premise C
Therefore, I conclude Claim X.
Premise A:
1A
Congress shall make no law respecting... abridging the freedom of speech

Premise B:
2A
shall not be infringed.

Premise C:
The underlined words, although different, in effect carry the same meaning.

Therefore, I conclude the claim that if "no law respecting... abridging the freedom of speech" actually has laws (which it does) that 'abridge the freedom of speech', then "shall not be infringed" would also logically have laws that 'infringe' the right to bear arms. "2A" has to be subjected to the same 'non absolute' as "1A". Bringing me to:

The absolutist arguments about free speech are a False Dilemma Fallacy, framing society as if we can only exist in either a state of pure unadulterated speech of all types, or of strict, regimented speech and beliefs, when in fact we exist somewhere in between.
I completely agree with this^. Now with my "premise" conclusion, I will borrow your words directly above (Not borrowed to mock you in any way, Max; I just like the way you worded it, so I won't try to improve on the logical construction of your sentence:

The absolutist arguments about right to bear arms are a False Dilemma Fallacy, framing society as if we can only exist in either a state of pure unadulterated gun ownership of all types, or of strict, regimented gun control, when in fact we exist somewhere in between.

Does this clarify where I'm coming from? I may be right/completely wrong/half-right, but the basis of my "2A not being absolute if the 1A isn't" is due to my thought process outlined above.

Once any 'Right' has a strings-attached qualifier attached to it, then is it no longer a Right, but a Privilege? Is the Bill of Rights actually a /Bill of Priveleges/? If the answer is yes, then who gets to ultimately control the priveleges, and based on what criteria? And what happens when that criteria changes as Society evolves (supposedly 'advances') in how life and culture and law is to be interpreted (if nothing is an 'absolute')?

I'm trying (and likely failing miserably) to try to condense my thoughts here as precisely as possible. Maybe this post helped in that regard, or maybe it made things worse. I'll end it here, before risking (further) convolution.

Thanks for the reply, Max
@Optimus Princeps and @Number one bummer :
You both as well. I'm all 'typed-out' for this evening in this thread, so I can't respect your posts right now by addressing/responding to them with any real/dignified depth.

A glance-over of my other two threads, before coming in this one, I have quite the foolish blunder to first correct before signing out.

As for "OrthodoxLaity", I don't know what happened in the last 24 hours, but it appears any response is probably not warranted now. :confused:
 
Last edited:

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
Therefore, I conclude the claim that if "no law respecting... abridging the freedom of speech" actually has laws (which it does) that 'abridge the freedom of speech', then "shall not be infringed" would also logically have laws that 'infringe' the right to bear arms. "2A" has to be subjected to the same 'non absolute' as "1A". Bringing me to:
Freedom of speech is more than just literal words--it is a concept, and it has a history, a relevancy and a subtext. This is truly an area where one must look to the "Spirit of the law" versus the "letter of the law".

Why is freedom of speech important? To allow ideas to be freely exchanged. To be unafraid of entertaining new ideas. Ultimately? To seek TRUTH.

Coming from a European continent torn by religious wars between Protestants and Catholics where saying the wrong words made one a heretic, who could be imprisoned or killed, the founders wanted people to be able to freely exchange ideas.

The desire was that all ideas should be given the light of day, and that nothing was so wrong or evil or bad that it should be silenced (or probably more accurately, that silencing a thing can cause it to grow, while openly discussing it can quickly reveal its merits or flaws).

But that doesn't mean that anything that can be verbally spoken is an idea, or is communicating any truth or message. Imagine, for example, Paul really despises Sam, and finds an easily impressionable young man in a state of distress. "That man over there, Sam, he has been committing adultery with your wife! He also steals out of the church offering! He plans to run away with your wife tonight and kidnap your children." These lies cause the man to kill Sam, who was completely innocent and did none of these things.

What public interest is served in allowing Paul to lie? There is none.
Likewise, there is no "speech", no ideas, no truth, in things like "fighting words", child pornography, etc.
Therefore the argument is that no speech is being abolished by banning things like fighting words, libel, pornography.

What is speech? Verbal communication. What idea is being communicated through libel? or through pornography? None!

Therefore a society can have both censorship of a limited types, and freedom of communication.

Does this clarify where I'm coming from? I may be right/completely wrong/half-right, but the basis of my "2A not being absolute if the 1A isn't" is due to my thought process outlined above.
The allowance to bear arms is for a specific purpose: A militia being necessary for protection. A reasonable person could imply that arms which are not necessary for operating the militia, in other words, for preserving the public safety, are not included in this protection. One can "keep and bare arms" without having access to an arsenal of bombs and munitions.

Practically speaking, there may very well be a slippery slope where things slowly erode after the first exception is made. Though I would argue that is simply entropy at work and it has nothing to do with documents or legal theory. Women are allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia today just because the country became decadent and weak, not because it violated some type of rights theory or had an internal conflict with one of its legal documents. Societies become corrupt over time if they are not maintained.

Once any 'Right' has a strings-attached qualifier attached to it, then is it no longer a Right, but a Privilege?
I agree with George Carlin concerning rights -- they are imaginary, and the bill of rights is really a List of Temporary Privileges. (Judge Andrew Napolitano rececently penned an article with this name).

Is the Bill of Rights actually a /Bill of Priveleges/? If the answer is yes, then who gets to ultimately control the priveleges, and based on what criteria? And what happens when that criteria changes as Society evolves (supposedly 'advances') in how life and culture and law is to be interpreted (if nothing is an 'absolute')?
Who controls your rights? The elites which run the government. How do they do so? As Mao Zedong said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. In other words, through force and power.

Which is why anything that even begins to lead in a direction that could one day curtail their power, from independent thinking Christians in Waco Texas to men trying to meet up at ROK coffee groups, to the alt-right, is met with harsh force.
 

No-Designation Man

Kingfisher
Other Christian
Freedom of speech is more than just literal words--it is a concept, and it has a history, a relevancy and a subtext. This is truly an area where one must look to the "Spirit of the law" versus the "letter of the law".

Why is freedom of speech important? To allow ideas to be freely exchanged. To be unafraid of entertaining new ideas. Ultimately? To seek TRUTH.
And I wonder if that is what it comes down to, Max, once the True God' is removed from an individual/populace equation.
John 18:37, 38
Jesus answered. “For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice". "What is truth?” Pilate asked.

We now have an official secular state in both Canada and United States, and the respective constitutions actually made this possible. it's gone so far, Max. Brutal force through an "organized militia", or Divine Intervention - that's the only way to reverse the perversion, it seems. If not soon, then the 'boot stomping on the face forever' is going to be reality.
I will expand on this^ thought in a reply to a part of one of @Optimus Princeps posts next session. I'm pressed for time tonight. I know what I wish to say, but it'll have to wait.

But that doesn't mean that anything that can be verbally spoken is an idea, or is communicating any truth or message. Imagine, for example, Paul really despises Sam, and finds an easily impressionable young man in a state of distress. "That man over there, Sam, he has been committing adultery with your wife! He also steals out of the church offering! He plans to run away with your wife tonight and kidnap your children." These lies cause the man to kill Sam, who was completely innocent and did none of these things.

What public interest is served in allowing Paul to lie? There is none.
Likewise, there is no "speech", no ideas, no truth, in things like "fighting words", child pornography, etc.
Therefore the argument is that no speech is being abolished by banning things like fighting words, libel, pornography.
To expand on this, "trial by social media" based on accusations with no evidence. I see this problem more as those who believe the baseless accusations, rather than the original person who made the baseless accusation (not that either group should be excused).

What is speech? Verbal communication. What idea is being communicated through libel? or through pornography? None!
YES! This is something I've always thought about when people are being censored off of social media. Your right to 'speech' is not being invalidated, but your 'right' to openly produce a 'hard-copy' and distribute your ideas that way is. Since an individual likely can't claim 'freedom of the Press', is banning anyone from a social media platform for any reason actually justifiable?

Therefore a society can have both censorship of a limited types, and freedom of communication.


The allowance to bear arms is for a specific purpose: A militia being necessary for protection. A reasonable person could imply that arms which are not necessary for operating the militia, in other words, for preserving the public safety, are not included in this protection. One can "keep and bare arms" without having access to an arsenal of bombs and munitions.

Practically speaking, there may very well be a slippery slope where things slowly erode after the first exception is made. Though I would argue that is simply entropy at work and it has nothing to do with documents or legal theory. Women are allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia today just because the country became decadent and weak, not because it violated some type of rights theory or had an internal conflict with one of its legal documents. Societies become corrupt over time if they are not maintained.


I agree with George Carlin concerning rights -- they are imaginary, and the bill of rights is really a List of Temporary Privileges. (Judge Andrew Napolitano rececently penned an article with this name).
Thanks! I shall have to look into this^ further; the original author and the headline using this quote are spot on!
Who controls your rights? The elites which run the government. How do they do so? As Mao Zedong said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. In other words, through force and power.
Indeed.
The constitution ('yours', or 'mine') isn't worth the paper it's written on - that's how I see it. Note that I'm not claiming that's also how you see it; I'm only agreeing with the words not your (unknown) personal intentions.

Edit: Almost lost entire post; must have timed-out, or something.
 

No-Designation Man

Kingfisher
Other Christian
The founders were essentially all monotheist / deists, if not Christians, and would all agree, for example, that lying is a dishonest and immoral thing that they all opposed wholeheartedly. The 1st A. stated that lying is not something the government can fine or imprison you for. To say that the founders were ok with lying is a misunderstanding of their principles and values, and indeed of the purpose of the bill of rights itself.

Again it's never been absolute and it's pretty established what it applies to. Regardless, 1A is not just freedom of speech, it also gives freedom of religion, freedom of the press and peaceful assembly. I would really suggest reading up a lot more on it in order to be more informed of your rights under it.
If the Framers were Christian, the allowance for freedom of religion and opinion other than what the Bible stipulates would never have been proposed. Although, I can understand why they may not have wanted to make such an 'overreach' (at least on paper), since they were (claiming they were) trying to counteract the government 'overreach' of the proposed constitution itself. Ironically, in (claiming they were) trying to counter what was seen as tyranny, the Framers themselves (whether accidentally, or deliberately) opened the door to tyranny with the proposal of such 1A tolerance (and I used that word 'tolerance' deliberately).

The continuing/intensifying disorder among the masses, that must result from the 'Freedom' and 'Rights' such as is what is granted through the 1A (and pretty much all the other ammendments), must also result in more and more government 'overreach' to remedy that disorder. 'Rights' always result in eventual chaos. That chaos, in turn, always demands tolalitarianism to remedy the situation. The end-game for the United States has always been a complete planned collapse resulting from the peaking of that chaos, with a planned after-effect of a subsequent rebuild into a totalitarian Regime - it has been (deliberately) delayed, yet in the works for ~250 years. Everything is happening as the Scriptures foretold it would.

This 7th King/Empire is the most fragile in earth's history, thanks to it's almost endless 'diversity' of traditions, of beliefs, of religions, of oreintations, of feelings, of morality, of opinions, of all the 'objective' truths of all those limitless subjective opinions, of missions, of individual purpose. The Bill of Rights is what has made this mess of confusion possible. I said in the OP that I do not support the concept of 1A, because I do not support, nor need any section of a man-made "Constitution" or "Bill of Rights" - No one needs or truly benefits from such documents, or the secular minded individuals that created them. I admit this last paragraph was more of a supplementary 'rant', but I wanted to get that off my chest. And I also know the Administration's goal to disarm the populace, regardless of what I think of most of said populace, has nothing to do with 'public safety', 'health', 'liberty', 'democracy', or whatever lies they're spewing to justify their own evil intents.

Iron does not mix with Moist Clay - something an inspired man tried to tell us long ago. (Daniel 2:41-43)
 
Last edited:

No-Designation Man

Kingfisher
Other Christian
This thread is obviously wrapping up and that's probably for the best anyway.
I will conclude by saying this:

The Bill of Rights has been continually 'interpreted' by SCOTUS. By appealing and challenging through the courts, "WE THE PEOPLE" keep demanding that the government has the final say for them through a continual legal defining of what the Bill of Rights actually does, or does not, entail. So these ammendments have been (and will be) interpreted/restricted by many (more) SCOTUS rulings. The Supreme Court is a Federal institution, enabled by the power of the Senate, [which was enabled by the power of State Legislators]*, which has always been ultimately enabled by the voting power of the so-called 'common man'. It would appear that the masses of "WE THE PEOPLE", no matter which political ideology they identify with, have kept repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot for more than the past two centuries, while continually demanding that the government supply them the gun to do so.

*I will say that reading about the loss of this intermediate step raised an eyebrow.
 
Top