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

This thread and poll is very special. It is hyper functional in this world of web forums. It is designed to create a body of Americans that KNOW they are sincere.

We have an immense problem that is lurking on web forums. It is called cognitive infiltration. Cognitive infiltrations first purpose is to prevent unity amongst American activist groups or their formation.

Therefore ANY thread that contributes to unity, creates clarity of purpose OBVIOUSLY rooted in prime American principles designed to elicit agreement; becomes a target for cognitive infiltration.

However, some communication can be so clear, so direct, so rooted in fundamental human purposes that are wholesome, oriented towards freedom, justice, peace and an an environment of pure elements of air and water, that the communications cannot be maligned or misrepresented.

This thread is an effort to create such a communication.

What I ask of you, if you are a sincere American who loves the concept of our constitution of 1787, is to accept something which is ALREADY a part of your human nature, your instincts, your very phylogenetic DNA; is to make an overt agreement and register here your acceptance of a definition of constitutional intent regarding freedom of speech.

This thread is designed to help Americans define constitutional intent to safeguard against the possibility that consolidations of corporations such as ALEC or others, who might promote an Article V convention, have a coherent, cognitive body of Americans that know how to assert constitutional intent in a manner that cannot be opposed without obviously being un American, if not inhuman.

I have a petition you could sign that is designed to make ALEC and Convention of States accountable to the peoples exclusive right and duty to define constitutional intent; if you feel you can go so far as to support accountability fmor such organizations.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/...icle-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

If you are a sincere American that accepts that the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood, please respond to the poll accordingly.

If you are a cognitive infiltrator opposing the concept that free speech exists to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood, respond accordingly, BUT, explain yourself, or try. Yea, just try. I'm waiting for you.

Now, any reading who wonder what in the F I'm doing this for, wait and see what happens. Return to this thread to see the result. Are Americans capable of making this agreement, of recognizing this fundament of their positive social instincts? Or, has media twisted their thinking so far that they are afraid of identifying by sharing their opinion upon such an overt move to create unity.

Let us see!

 

The Supreme Court defined it as being to promote the free exchange of ideas.

 

Yes, of course.

Q-But why are ideas so good?

A-Because they can assure survival.

Please express your opinion in the poll Rainbow Crow.

 

Free speech really means free transmission of what the conscious mind of the individual has determined from the pattern of electrical impulses in the individual's brain tissue, and deciding to relay that pattern to another life form.

Therefore, once the individual mind has determined some pattern, it is a natural function to wish to corroborate with another life form that those electrical impulses really are of some importance, other than just a reoccurring biological response to the environment.

Basically, each life form being initially created in an isolated container, the sudden introduction to an entirely new environment, complete with hitherto, unexperienced sensations, sets into motion the very essential need to eventually express what the mind of the newly created life form is experiencing. So sound transmission is typically one of the first forms of communication and therefore the human mind has conceived that it is such a basic biological necessity that it must therefore be an unalienable right.

 

I would point out that should you actually seek what you post in the OP, It would be extremely helpful to begin with a useful poll that does not limit the choices to your own understanding of free speech.

The concept of free speech is far more complex that you allow for, and is in fact quite different from individual to individual based on intellect and education...as is that which one can consider required for survival.

This thread is too flawed to be considered useful...but hey....you are free to speak.

 

I'm not American but I hope you don't mind. I'm pretty sure I'm not a cognitive infiltrator though.

I'm not sure your definition is the intended principle behind the concept of free speech, certainly in a Constitutional context. After all, survival (individually, as a society or as a species - you've not made clear which you're thinking of) is possible without free speech, indeed could even be easier under a more restrictive policy.

Free speech is more about ensuring every individual has a voice in the running and governance of society, one part of creating a certain kind of society where everyone is valued, with equal rights and responsibilities. Whether that actually works is a whole different question.

 

The 1st Amendment is intended to guarantee a citizen's right to disagree with the government. The fact that is protects nude dancing and rude speech is a liberal aberration but the purpose is to allow you to publicly disagree with the government.

Please note, there is no protection granted from your wife, your boss, your neighbor, or any other citizen. Open you mouth and you can get a divorce, get fired, or be shunned by your neighbors.

The Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door are giving me information that they consider vital to my survival. I don't and wish they'd stop.

 

Yes, those electrical impulses originally indicated something that was a result of some action that assured survival for some primal organism. But another similar organism was effected by the travel of sound waves in the medium the organisms lived in. It recognized the patterns as those patterns that itself made. There may have been confusion in mistaking the sound as from itself, which induced travel towards or mimickry, which assured the survival of that organism too.

Even for amoeba, the freedom of making sounds assures survival

 

Freedom of speech is designed to allow us to say whatever we want, be it vital for life or not.

Campaign finance reform is anti-free speech.

 

Yep, real freedom of speech means also that you are free to see that freedom of speech is wrong ...

A part this, this thread makes me think to FOIA [Freedom Of Information Act] and its effect on the diffusion of government and federal "secrets". So far it seems that only ufologists use this law ...

 

You are making an objective argument here I think but a lot of people today reject objectivity for a wide variety of reasons. You sort of have to start there and you will probably realize very quickly that you can't talk people into caring about objectivity, in the values or the literal sense, they either care or they don't.

 

The root purpose of free speech is to allow us to be human, to share our viewpoints, our desires, our problems and our knowledge. It is all of this and more. It allows our voices to be heard in harmony or discordance. It allows us to complain when something is wrong or voice our support when something is right. To narrow the meaning is to invite abuse. If the root purpose of free speech is ONLY to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood, then how easy would it be for someone to declare speech they don't like as NOT vital to survival or that it stops information from being understood? Free speech has to be freedom for all or it is freedom to no one.

 

I heartily disagree with this claim. Campaign finance reform is constructed to guarantee that access to the right of free speech is more equitably distributed. A theoretical right that cannot be practically exercised is a lie. Money as speech guarantees that, while all have "free speech" the exercise of that speech will only bear substantive social weight when it arises from a wealth controlling interest. Without substantial campaign financing reform, our democratic process becomes nothing more than a poorly disguised plutocracy.

 

Yet another conservative who wants to limit free speech in order to protect it.

"Cognitive Infiltration", that's good, very erudite sounding, much better than "crimethink".

Free speech is Freedom of Expression, it has nothing whatsoever to do with survival inherently. Oh, and the idea that it only applies to government is like saying we can TALK about free expression all we want, we just can't really EXPRESS it.

 

It has nothing to do with survival inherently? Oh, the contemporary understandings of rights. They never cease to amaze me. The idea that rights are not based in conceptions of survival and utility seems ludicrous. For what reason, does this concept exist?

 

I've numbered my responses to improve cognition of your answers. Kindly number your answers or it will be assumed you wish to hinder cognition with confusion.

1) Why do you assume I seek anything except what I ask for? Your opinion.

2)Does this mean you have voted that free speech does NOT have the root purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood?

Would you choose to use speech for something else if you first needed it to share and understand how to survive? Please explain your implied reasoning that assumes you are different than myself or anyone I know.

3)Why does the below, the poll question, disallow other uses than that of survival. The statement clearly says "root purpose". It disallows nothing. PLease explain WHY you would attempt to minimize in this instance.

Is the root purpose of free speech to assure info vital to survival, shared/understood

4)You imply that I've stated somewhere that I do not allow for any differences that are reasonable. Human needs for survival are basically the same in the reasonable consideration of all sincere people. Why do you do that?

5)You've applied a label, a cognitive distortion with the use of a word, "flawed" in an effort to minimize the purpose of this thread, which is to gain agreement. Please explain why you have done this.

 

This is true until their survival is objectively at stake. Then they care.

Sincere people ALWAYS objectively admit that survival is a prime priority for them. The insincere ALWAYS fail to objectively state what is more important than their survival.

 

Many Americans have been trading posts with cognitive infiltrators so long, and not knowing it, that they behave like cognitive infiltrators. Unconscious social conditioning is invisible to the person being conditioned.

If you know the framing documents of he American republic, then you've heard of "alter or abolish" from the Declaration of Independence. In 1859 Lincoln made a speech in Ohio. He said, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". The only legal process that affords that is Article V of the constitution. Our first constitutional right of 1787.

Explain how the unalienable right of "life", would be protected from abuse by government without unity of the people created by the use of free speech focused upon sharing information vital to survival. In that instance, "altering or abolishing" abusive government.

Limiting ideas for survival by restriction of speech is not likely to promote species survival, or that of the individual.

For the purpose of assuring survival by barring government abusive to that survival.

Without free speech, it will not work. We are our own educators for our won interests. As far as "equal responsibilities". Consider corporations have the rights of individuals, but cannot be held responsible as individuals, so are abusive to our survival with exploitation for profit. Consider that we need unity focused on survival to limit that destruction of what is vital to survival.

 

QUOTE=PatrickT;1064190689]The 1st Amendment is intended to guarantee a citizen's right to disagree with the government.[/QUOTE]

That's true because government could abuse its power and impair survival. It already is.

Correct, so that unity of the people can correct government abusive to our unalienable right.

Correct, and they cannot prove that it is vital to your survival. They are unconsciously programmed with beliefs.

 

You might be surprised, there are plenty of people out there who value things over their lives and/or whom never want to have children (assuming you lump that in with survival).

They tend to be really passionate and have a surprisingly large impact on our policies as a result since this is a Democracy and most people don't vote.

 

If a pedestrian is hit by a car, and paramedics are working with life saving operations, and you, for some reason cannot leave, and you try to say whatever you want. The cop standing there WILL arrest you if you do not maintain silence and information vital to survival to be shared and understood.

If the politician is deceiving the public into making decisions that will impair their living in the long term, and money from corporations is enabling the politician to reach the public. The politician and the corporation are working to violate unalienable rights which is unconstitutional. Indeed, it is treasonous to the intents of the constitution.


This is why the public needs to be aware of constitutional intent. The constitution intends that free speech ALWAYS serve the purpose of assuring information vital to survival be shared and understood FIRST.

It is unreasonable and illogical to have any other priority. It is a fatal mistake.

 

Uh, yea. Perceive how you want. But when you need to unify with others against a threat to survival, your instincts will take over. And nonsense uses of speech are going to really (*)(*)(*)(*) you, and everyone off.

No, I've tried to use that law and it is unenforceable. Courts will not hold government accountable to it unless LOTS of highly paid attorneys are involved. Even then they might not.

 

No...thank you.

 

True enough, but when your or anthers survival is at stake, you will be adamant about the use of speech to share and understand that which is needed for survival. If you are true to your instincts and a human that is a part of the evolving mass of humans.

Yes, but again. The instinctual priority takes over when matters of survival are at stake.

Correct, but that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that WHEN survival is materially at stake, then, naturally, instinctually, all people who are a part of the evolving mass of humanity need and want speech assuring survival to be shared and understood.

Correct, but ALL need to be involved, then the materiality of the threat can be verified by ALL, or only those with the power to be heard will be heard and they may deceive for some personal reason. That is really my point and that that is also our very real problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you, well said!

 

That has not been said. If such is not true. Quote it to substantiate what you say.

Its very real and very dangerous to the future.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

I was a member at the original crimethink forum. It was infiltrated with groups that promoted destructive behaviors and illogical positions. It disappeared.

Is this why you will be arrested for speech that interferes with life saving operations?

The purpose of free speech, assuring that information vital to survival is shared and understood will always take precedence within natural human response and no contrived conditions can alter that biological instinctual fact. Government has empowered corporations to communicate corruptions of all types for decades to mass audiences. Despite that fact, when their survival is threatened, they will willing listen to that which assures their coordinated action of survival.