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

Cognitive infiltrator checking in!

 

Nothing hidden, just not offered. You are the one evading and failing to use reason regarding your survival instinct as it is socially expressed. Now you are manipulating using cognitive distortions of entitlement.

This is about developing Americans capacity to define constitutional intent. If you don't like that, just say so.

 

Ok, so you are not ready to let us in on your secret yet. That's fine. As for my evasion, I disagree. On my very first post on this thread, I explained my position. In case you have forgotten or can't find it:

As for defining constitutional intent, that is what the courts or more specifically, the Supreme Court, is for. For the rest of us, if we want to make a portion of the Constitution more clear or change it to what we think it should be saying, we can add amendments.

 

Amazing how poorly informed some are, or how hard they try to pretend such, to think the courts are allowed to define constitutional intent. NO, they only can interpret it, the same with congress.

This thread is empowering the people, the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". Lincoln, 1859.

 

If you could or would google, you would know how wrong that statement is. I have around 650 web pages on 2 sites. My name is attached to both.

A cognitive infiltrator would probably not bring attention to any of them, but would certainly want me to try so they could attempt to marginalize me with criticism of the information of them. The biggest controversies of our planet are addressed, and many small ones too. Just meaningful controversies to our rights and freedoms, to justice and our survival or evolution on the sphere.

 

No where will you find the court is allowed to define constitutional intent.

Needs come before wants and desires. You didn't list that. Meaning in an emergency you probably do not survive. This is a constitutional emergency. Neglecting the concept of using free speech for needs FIRST, is fatal.

 

But free speech applying in all cases includes those where "need" is a factor. The only possible benefit that could be gained from viewing free speech as a means to desired outcomes is that you restrict it for certain speech which produces discontent and the such.

 

That is exactly what I've said. Needs are vital, desires are not.

Survival is the most desired outcome. Only the mentally ill have discontent at survival over desires they are fixated upon.

 

Hiding nothing. What I am doing is preventing obsufucation, distraction and degradation of the topic.

This struggle is primed by social elements of antiquity, with precept erroneously widely accepted, that can be used to marginalize the truth about the origin of the subversion of the natural law right to share and understand information vital to survival.

I see you working to invoke that rather than argue against the purpose of free speech, because to do so looks very bad and marginalized YOU.

 

Free speech zones. Introduced in Boston a few months ago. From now on, restrict your free speech to the free speech zones. And make time to go there. Was announced by most main stream media outlets earlier this year.

 

Yes, Americans do not realize that free speech is there only tool for unity, and it is getting further abridged with each month.

The intent of the Declaration of Independence defines a right to "alter or abolish" government destructive to unalienable rights. That intent is carried into Article V.

We can see with recent events that government is becoming more destructive to unalienable rights. This indicates we need to work towards unity adequate to alter or abolish through proper use of Article V. As that need is more apparent, we see government restricting free speech. This is a sign government is unconstitutional and is moving to suspend the constitution completely.

Sincere Americans need to focus and increase their speech upon the collective action of unity. Our unified agreement upon the purpose of free speech is the easiest and most natural we as Americans can make. IT IS ALSO PRIME CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT.

Two needed effects with one action.

In order to assure all amendments at Article V have constitutional intent, Ameticans need to prepare. The concept of preparatory amendment is the most logical plan to begin to share as political strategy escaping the control of partisan politics which is a trap of dysfunction. Three amendments are needed, the first is ending the abridging if free speech. After that securing the vote and campaign finance reform.

After the American people understand the current condition, and can define constitutional intent, then general amendments can be safely applied to the conventions of states.

 

In a very abbreviated nutshell, the First Amendment is there to insure that the government isn't the only voice speaking. Yes, part and parcel of that is the intent that Americans then can speak and organize to act as one voice.

That said, free speech certainly does not apply only to "needs". The very word "needs" can be defined differently by different people.

I believe the free speech zones will be found unconstitutional if/when challenged.

 

Yes, it it's usual sense, free speech does not only apply to needs, that is its ultimate root purpose. The protection of life. When many lives are involved it becomes even moreso.

An example of one life at stake is perhaps seen with an accident between a pedestrian and a vehicle with severe injuries in a confined area were there are a number of people and paramedics are trying to administer life saving aid. The cop watching over will deal very harshly with anyone speaking at all thatifht interfere with the paramedics operation.

There is another situation where covert infiltrators try to prevent a group from organizing to defend themselves from assault by imposing nonsensical distraction and misinformation at critical times.

 

Well, at the risk of coming across like a cognitive infiltrator I think the purpose of free speech encompasses more than assuring the sharing of what is vital to survive. It needs to include as well that which may not be necessary for survival, hell, even that which may be entirely irrelevant to survival but nonetheless may be a fine idea in and of itself. Why limit free speech to what is vital to survival when we can also include that it's for the purpose of making life better?

 

Of course. We are all making short lists of things that are fine ideas for later. After needs are taken care of.

The later threads on this vein of thought highligh that unity is very often required for survival. And, as survival is increasingly threatened, unity for survival becomes a higher priority.

We are touching upon the boiling frogs recipe. I mean how much evidence does it take to know the water is getting hot?
Cognitive Infiltration works against the awareness that the water is getting hot and it's time to unify and build a frog bridge. Now, confused frogs will wonder WTF those other frogs are talking about in their amphibian comfort, and just point out that things are really pretty nice and why bother.

So I wouldn't label you an infiltrator, but I would suggest an element of confusion rules if there is hesitation considering why unity for survival is a priority now.

Check this thread to find a strange fixation with conflict rather than any focus on function.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/394345-we-should-get-rid-free-speech.html

Keep in mind the thread title is an inverted title, probably invented because direct discussion upon the subject of free speech here seems disabled.

 

The purpose of free speech is to protect hateful, controversial, unconstructive or even wrong statements.

We do not need free speech protections for things that many people agree with.

 

I won't be making any indirect claims to ignorance. I am ignorant of this oppressive element that is going to control our populations with genocidal force. Critical thinking suggests that if there is substantial evidence, it won't be a huge inconvenience for you to share a little with me. The least you can do is tell us more about the 'oppressive element' and give it a name. Otherwise its your credibility that is left in doubt here. Not many here are likely to participate in a poll or sign a petition created by someone we worry is a paranoid loon.

 

Speech that protects all other rights is obviously more important and constitutional than other speech. The constitution preserves vital rights so is most important to preserve.

Any right which empowers the constitution in its primary function is a primary right and the constitution needs to spell that empowerment out then empower it. Doing so protects all rights.

 

All speech is free, but not all speech is equal.

Basically the ideal of American government is that the government enables our unity so if it ever becomes destructive to unalienable rights we can alter or abolish it .

Accordingly speech that tends to unify us needs to be promoted by government ,

Speech that makes us aware of the destruction of unalienable rights also needs to be promoted by government. In this way we are easily united to protect them in any way necessary.

Coordinating our actions in the protection of unalienable rights after we are unified is a completely natural manifestation of the PURPOSE of free speech.

Education of the masses by the masses for the above intents is the safest way for a society to find continuity.

 

I don't know about how everything must be part of some awesome "special purpose". Freedom of speech is simply that -- freedom of speech. We Americans have the right to express ourselves without restriction, except, of course, in the case of somebody shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc., etc. Everyone of us who are citizens in this country have this right -- rich and poor. The mere mention of it doesn't need to be some kind of big, bug-eyed supernatural deal. It simply IS.

 

Open the door stark naked a few times, and see how they will never knock on your door again !

And it is information about your salvation, they wish to share with you.

 

You sound like a Communist, Communists have Free speech as long as it is not contary to the party's ideals and Agenda.

 

Are you sure you are replying to my comment?

All speech is free in America, but all speech is not equal in reality.

The point of the thread is to see that the ultimate purpose of free speech, manifesting our right to alter or abolish by enabling our unity is enumerated in the constitution.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

The purpose of guaranteeing free speech has nothing to do with survival. Guaranteeing free speech as some kind of "God-given right" is just a psychological right that makes it seem like you have some kind of control over your government. By stating that you have the right of free speech is part of that bogus social contract that essentially means that you have the freedom to speak out against the government if you want to.