Is the purpose of free speech to assure info vital to life is shared and understood?

Correct, but superficially so. Government has empowered corporations that have exploited instincts that are compelling in social structures, but still, when it comes down to it only those impaired psychologically by excess or drugs/alcohol will choose death over survival.

Correct, but only because of the abridging of free speech. If the people educated themselves with free speech, they will correct themselves in order to survive.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not an offering, it is a standard of sincerity and you fail.

 

8/19/14

Rainbow Crow
SkullKrusher
tecoyah
HonestJoe
PatrickT
perdidochas
AlpinLuke
DarkDaimon
TM2
Aleksander Ulyanov


Six poll responses and ten comments. Accountability is lacking.

Please, those that have commented, leave your opinion in the poll.

 

Good analysis but Occam's razor applies here. You are assuming that people want survival foremost and in a sense I believe that they do, but how to people understand and perceive survival? Up until this point in history that was done through being happy. Most people are simple souls and as such they do not want survival because that can be hard or even beyond their abilities to discern, so they want happiness. And what causes happiness? Consumption. What panders to consumption? Consumer corporations. The fact that some people's values are screwed up has nothing to do with a lack of free speech, they are just doing what makes them happiest and since the advent of birth control being happy is severable from the cause of promoting the long-term survival of their family line.

 

Free speech is a means to no end. It doesn't exist to bring about some desirable goal, it's desirable in itself.

 

As far as I can tell you want to limit free speech to only that which is necessary to survival, and you and/or your group of "non-cognitive infiltrators" will determine what is necessary to survival, is this right?

 

We always want what we need, but do not always need what we want. America has learned a real problem in this area from mass media. Root purpose is the part to keep in mind.

 

No, that is wrong. Your cognition cannot be that poor naturally. It is clear you are intentionally misrepresenting the concept presented in the thread.

It is the root purpose, related to the principals of the American republic, and if a mandate, it is human instinct which dictates which speech assures survival not me or government.

 

So with all this talk of survival, let me ask you, do you believe our survival is at stake?

 

Valid points, and I actually keep them in mind nearly always. Such is often a learned mentality assumed because there is not much which is better than you describe that is also easy.

The purpose of free speech is a very simple concept which empowers because it is an ideal that is of and for the people in its essence. When ordinary people realize how widely and easily agreement upon this is THEN realize that it is the key to the function of "alter or abolishing" abusive government, they are enriched with a real hope. They know eventually the people can rise to be the masters of the congress and the courts by engaging agreement upon simple definition of constitutional intent.

 

free speech means the gov can control your speech, giving you the freedom to share ideas and criticisms of the world around you....

in other-words the gov can not jail you for saying the world is not flat or for protesting funerals cause you think your God hates gay people


.

 

OK.....woe is me.

 

May be the Courts are interested in ufology ...

 

Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

Yes, and it is a much larger picture than can be easily explained. However, the smaller picture is adequate to inform and motivate. Ample evidence substantiates there is an oppressive element that is going to control our populations with genocidal force if we cannot unify to oppose it.

Our constitution contains widely recognized principal that exists for these purposes, if we can apprehend it and unify around it. That principal hinges on our ability to define constitutional intent. The root purpose of free speech defined in this thread is prime constitutional intent mechanistic to the process of altering or abolishing government abusive to the unalienable right to act in furtherance of our lives.

 

Purpose and meaning are similar, not the same at all. Given the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood, we can work backwards from the final effect of understanding to the element that inspires human cooperation.

It is a thing of human psychology deeply rooted in the family and extended family with philosophical connotation. I learned of that part first and derived the purpose because of need for something more pragmatic. The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" was a philosophical doctrine well used by the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy and many other indigenous tribes. It goes like this.

The practice of free speech can create understanding between people. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Franklin and Jefferson totally got it and wanted to incorporate it directly in the Declaration of Independence. Competition from elements loyal to England worked together to exclude it knowing it would lead to unity so great England would never have a chance to divide and retake their colonies. The result was the last 30% of it is all that made it into the 1776 Declaration.

This ultimately made the purpose very difficult to derive from the partial statement of 1776 and that of 1792, the 1st Amendment, which only limits the government and does not imbue compelling human principle into the republic.

 

The First amendment clearly says that Congress will make no law abridging freedom of speech or the press. If I am not allowed to pay for ads in a local paper or print out fliers supporting my local candidate due to campaign finance reform, I have clearly lost freedom of speech and press. That is what campaign finance laws do.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought the OP was a progressive, not a conservative.

- - - Updated - - -

Your poll responses are silly. I used my freedom of speech to not respond to them.

 

Well, I will not spend time arguing about the sufficiency of constitutional provisions to adequately provide for the solution to problems that have arisen in the contemporary era. I will assume, as you do, the idea that constitutional provisions should be accepted as correct and sufficient without qualification for the sake of argument.

Even under such assumptions, your point is not well taken. The freedom of the press in constitutional jurisprudence refers to the public dissemination of information. The freedom of speech is the speech itself. Your argument seeks to make the microphone equivalent to the speech. Money provides a larger platform for political speech to be heard, however it has nothing to do with the content of speech itself, therefore it is not speech.

 

Further, It does not really matter whether the OP is conservative or progressive. Not bowing down to the altar of some ill defined, manipulative concept of "free speech" is rational. It does not need to be a left/right issue.

 

That is freedom of the press. If you limit the funding of the press, you are limiting the press.

 

No. You are not regulating the content of the press's message.

 

There are laws against treason. High level law enforcement IS concealing treason these days. Some of what politicians are trying to promote is tantamount to treason. Accordingly, democracy requires equality of information capacity to the public to create informed opinion and at least avoid inadvertantly supporting treason.

I am against all parties. No party has capacity to conduct constitutional defense and are being used in schema of usurpation. Assuming I am of any party reveals a weakness born of ignorance regarding constitutional principle, or an inability to identify when expression is parallel to it.

 

For someone claiming that the root purpose of free speech to assure info vital to survival, I am surprised at the lack of vital info in your speech. What is this oppressive element that you mentioned and what evidence do you have to substantiate us having to oppose it?

 

Critical thinking would indicate you are making an indirect claim to ignorance of the threat an infiltrated government and loss of the constitution. Or, inversely, that you support that threat and loss if the constitution.

Supporting this, we find you seeking controversial claim to threat I might have made so you can marginalize that instead of the purpose of free speech. Which looks very bad.

Your pretense is transparent. I suggest you find a site that promotes the new world order and tyranny directly.

 

The above indicates you find the governments use of the constitution adequate and make no argument against it or any supporting usurpations of the constitution. The below is a cover argument well known or exercised and acknowledged then acquiesced to in order to make the above seem more acceptable. Which it is not.

The constitution has a only a few serious deficiencies, but it has them. Because of them and for other reasons, enforcement of the constitution is VERY inadequate making your post and presence here a very deceptive act.

Furthermore, and supporting what I write above; one of those deficiencies relates to freedom of speech and you are posting in this thread against compensation for that deficiency.

 

Interesting. I was merely seeking information yet I am subject to attack.You talk about critical thinking, yet fail to use it at even its most basic level. I just asked a simple question, yet I am met with evasion and obfuscation.What are you hiding?