Quoted: Funny how most of us who swear by a "strict interpretation" of the US Constitution are stumbling all over themselves on this one. And most of you are.

Quoted: Of course (and God bless those hypothetical leathernecks) - and being willing to live the consequences of one's actions is supremely important, and something that in my opinion is sadly disappearing from society. That said, in the hypothetical world where the 1st amendement is "unrestricted" those Marines would be arrested, probably convicted for assault, and sued for every penny they own by the feces-smearer.  After all, if the 1st were unrestricted, what the marines would do is no different from beating the crap out of an artist because you don't like his paintings, or climbing onto the stage at the opera and pummling the diva because you don't like her singing.

Well, my comments were tongue-in-cheek, but you raise an interesting question.

We've had this argument before (not you and I, DK), but it bears repeating.

I am absolutely sure that the Founding Fathers were trying to guarantee the right of every citizen to be free to speak to complain about the government, especially if you read it in context.

But there's the rub.....they were talking about speech, not "acts".

The modern courts have said that dancing naked is "speech".  This is ridiculas and silly.  Just because the stupid courts say it is speech doesn't make it so.

The Founding Fathers never in their wildest dreams would have thought the First Amendment was guaranteeing someone's right to smear a Memorial to our great warriors with fecal matter.  The Founding Fathers would have been appauled to have heard that some stupid judge would call such actions "speech".

To smear a memorial with feces is an immoral and horrible act, and the perpetrator ought to be arrested and convicted of his crime.

The First Amendment recognizes our right to "SPEAK" whatever we please, especially in reference to critizising the government.  That is all.

It does not give someone the "right" to make child pornography, to smear a memorial with feces, to publically dance naked against the wishes of society, or any other such thing.

No Founding Father would have ever thought that.

Quoted: Quoted: If it wasn't for protection againt an absolute tyranny, then why was it created?  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Anarchy is not "freedom". The absolutist interpretation of the Constitution MUST allow for anarchy (as in pointed out with some examples earlier), so what you're saying is that Constitution promotes an anarchistic society, as opposed to a democratic republic? Quoted: As for what Old Painless stated, we all know this is far from a moral and religious country, so does that mean we should abandon the constitution? No. But neither should we read it as it was NEVER INTENDED - that being from an absolutist viewpoint.

Were are you pulling this anarchy crap out of?  How does sticking to the words of the constitution equal an anarchist society?  I'm not understanding your logic.

The "Never Intended" arguement is whats screwing things up in this country.  The founding fathers never thought of a world of firearms with accuracy and a rate of fire far superior to their guns, so should we say the second amendment on applies to muzzle loaders?  Once you start screwing with one amendment, you open up all the others for attack.

Quoted: As for what Old Painless stated, we all know this is far from a moral and religious country, so does that mean we should abandon the constitution?

My comments would be that we do not abandon the Constitution, but realize that we will be forced to "explain" it as society changes.

By that I mean, that the Founding Fathers did not think it necessary to say, "You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater", but in the present society which is indeed, as you say, "far from a moral and religious country", we will need to say that.

It is a shame, but if men are not restricted by religion and/or morals, then laws must restrict their (bad) behavior.

no

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Conspiracy =  "free speech" Advocate Violent Overthrow Of Gov't = "free speech" Inciting Riot = "free speech" Sedition & Treason = "free speech" why the hell do you think we have a second amendment?   To shoot people who are simply exercising their right to free speech of course. thats some answer there cheif What did you expect with such a dumbfucking question there squire?

Quoted: Quoted: As for what Old Painless stated, we all know this is far from a moral and religious country, so does that mean we should abandon the constitution? My comments would be that we do not abandon the Constitution, but realize that we will be forced to "explain" it as society changes. By that I mean, that the Founding Fathers did not think it necessary to say, "You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater", but in the present society which is indeed, as you say, "far from a moral and religious country", we will need to say that. It is a shame, but if men are not restricted by religion and/or morals, then laws must restrict their (bad) behavior.

my problem with this is that once you start having to "explain" it, then that opens up the doors for other people to "explain" other amendments with their own (sometimes biased) interpretation.

Quoted: my problem with this is that once you start having to "explain" it, then that opens up the doors for other people to "explain" other amendments with their own (sometimes biased) interpretation.

Your concerns are well-founded.

It is a fine line to walk.  Especially when we cannot trust the courts and Congress to be filled with "good and honest men".

Quoted: Fraud = "free speech" Libel =  "free speech" Slander =  "free speech" Perjury =  "free speech" Conspiracy =  "free speech" Advocate Violent Overthrow Of Gov't = "free speech" Inciting Riot = "free speech" Sedition & Treason = "free speech" Selling Kiddie Porn = "free speech" No restrictions = "NO RESTRICTIONS"

yeah and

shooting people = right to bear arms?

;)

If it harms others in any way shape or form, and i'm not talking the crap crazy soccer moms say, then yes it should be illegal. if i sit here and tell you that i'm a police officer and you have to give me your car, that is illegal, and it should be. likewise if i sit here and tell you that i'm an investment banker, and i steal your money, that should be illegal, but the act of stealing is what should be illegal, not the means of doing it. if you can't trust anyone you should always wear body armor, and always get it in writing.

by saying that i'm not allowed to lie, you're basicly saying that i can't cary a weapon in terms of amendments.

although lying that deminishes someones reputaion and character should be illegal, but thats like illegaly shooting someone with a handgun you can legaly cary.

Quoted: Quoted: Fraud = "free speech" Libel =  "free speech" Slander =  "free speech" Perjury =  "free speech" Conspiracy =  "free speech" Advocate Violent Overthrow Of Gov't = "free speech" Inciting Riot = "free speech" Sedition & Treason = "free speech" Selling Kiddie Porn = "free speech" No restrictions = "NO RESTRICTIONS" yeah and shooting people = right to bear arms? ;) If it harms others in any way shape or form... then yes it should be illegal.

That's not what the 1st Amendment says.

Are you implying we should INTERPRET, READ INTO and QUALIFY the clear unambiguous words "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, there are some things I'd rather not have my kids see on TV.... I mean, would you unrestricted 1st ammendment supporters be OK if EVERY TV show in every time slot had kiddie porn or beastiality in it, even the kids programs?? Responsible parenting starts at home, not preaching but if you do not like what is on the television then it is not the Televisions fault. Get the kids off the TV and make them do other things, I did it with mine and it worked for me. The viewing on TV is bad at least and I can understand where you are coming from, what I do for my grand daughter is I do review what she watches with strict protocol for what is acceptable and what is not. No violence or porn or cussing, no exceptions. Believe me. Im the same way. When they do watch TV its monitored. My post was merely pointing out if EVERY program was like that.

I know and understand where you were coming from and had no doubt that you cared,

Many parents do not have a clue on the kids location, let alone the content of programing on the television.

Quoted: The First Amendment recognizes our right to "SPEAK" whatever we please, especially in reference to critizising the government.  That is all.

I was wondering if anyone was going to figure this one out.
It's SPEECH.

Not pictures.
Not Feces.
Not movies.
Not  "art".

It's SPEECH.  And by implication and context, political speech.  The anarchist and communist is exactly who the amendment is meant to protect.
And the political ads two weeks before the election, too.

Not the pronographer, stripper, or movie producer.

Larry

Restriction?.....1st Amendment is 1st Amendment.

Yes...Even you Sarge!