Quote from: kalash on January 12, 2015, 03:20:09 AM
Good sounding, but empty words from frenchman. I don't think he, or anybody else would be ready to die exactly for the that.  It would be stupid and deserved to be nominated to Darwin award. Especially to die for that :

But, if you ready to die for Hustler magazine, I take my words back.   

Then you truly do not understand Americans, our First Amendment is the center piece of our freedoms, and backed up with the Right to enforce it's survival with a gun.

Quote from: Solar on January 12, 2015, 05:14:30 AM
Then you truly do not understand Americans, our First Amendment is the center piece of our freedoms, and backed up with the Right to enforce it's survival with a gun.

What about the "Alien and Sedition Acts"? Were they 100% immoral? The founders did not interpret the first amendment to allow seditionists and traitors publish whatever they material they wanted as demonstrated by all the local cencorship of seditionist publications. And what about Thomas Jefferson's party which attacked the federalist for it's "Alien and Sedition Acts" but when in power during the war against Britain in 1812 broke into seditionist publishers Offices and destroyed their property?

If the First Amendment is supposed to protect traitors and seditionists, something some of the brightest and most moral founders even thought was not the case then why should it protect the same scum today?

Quote from: kalash on January 12, 2015, 03:20:09 AMBut, if you ready to die for Hustler magazine, I take my words back.   

Your missing the point.  This has nothing to do with the content of the magazine. All those people in the deli weren't held hostage and shot because of the magazine, it's because they were Jewish.  9/11 wasn't about the Hebdo publication.  Islamist terrorists will find whatever excuse they want to kill and say it's because Allah commands it. 

Quote from: Mountainshield on January 12, 2015, 05:47:16 AM
What about the "Alien and Sedition Acts"? Were they 100% immoral? The founders did not interpret the first amendment to allow seditionists and traitors publish whatever they material they wanted as demonstrated by all the local cencorship of seditionist publications. And what about Thomas Jefferson's party which attacked the federalist for it's "Alien and Sedition Acts" but when in power during the war against Britain in 1812 broke into seditionist publishers Offices and destroyed their property?

If the First Amendment is supposed to protect traitors and seditionists, something some of the brightest and most moral founders even thought was not the case then why should it protect the same scum today?

I'm not following your point at all. Do I have the Right of sedition to the Bill of Rights? Is that your point?

Quote from: kalash on January 11, 2015, 01:09:39 AM

I can have it any way I want to (1st amendment, remember?), it just happen to be the right way, out of  many.  I really don't care about murder of the perverts. And I would love to see  the murderers to be killed on the spot, by these perverts.  In other way, i would cheer, if they would kill each other. Didn't happen that way? Well, you can't have everything.
Just yesterday, in Donbass(Ukraine), another case happen, that didn't attract the same attention, as murder case in France - the shell hit private house, as a result 10 year old boy lost three limbs out of four, one eye and second eye also damaged. His 5 year old brother was killed. The shell came from ukrainian army. 
So sorry (actually I am not) that I am so cruel, and don't want to join to quire of mourners for these "journalists".

Well based on your continued dumbassery and refusal to accept a modicum of logic or reason, I hope they kill you for your opinion.

End of story.  Hopefully your family is spared the fallout of your stupidity.  But I hope some political / social hack blows your ass off because your opinion is insulting to them.  This is obviously the world you want to endorse.

Me, I'll continue to live in a sane, adult world.

Quote from: Solar on January 12, 2015, 06:10:36 AM
I'm not following your point at all. Do I have the Right of sedition to the Bill of Rights? Is that your point?

I believe he is saying that First Amendment rights you assert to be paramount were in fact soundly ignored by those acts of Congress. He's not saying sedition is cool, he's saying those laws were designed to suppress freedom of speech, and did historically happen on Thomas Jefferson's watch.

There has never been a right to speech that pursues overthrow of the govt.

Or libel, or slander, or physical threats (AKA assault with or without the battery), or causing panic which hurts or threatens to hurt  people.

It really is that simple.

EVERYTHING ELSE is fair game.  Especially the most vile, disturbing, insulting.  Speech that everybody likes doesn't need legal protection, lol.....everybody likes it and wants more.

Aspiring dictators always define any speech that doesn't support them, as "vile, disturbing, insulting, dangerous, etc." and criminalize it.  Again, for the hard of hearing or thinking.......anything that doesn't support / agree with Dear Leader.

I mean come on, this is so damned obvious that even a dog or cat should be able to grasp it.

Quote from: quiller on January 12, 2015, 07:38:01 AM
I believe he is saying that First Amendment rights you assert to be paramount were in fact soundly ignored by those acts of Congress. He's not saying sedition is cool, he's saying those laws were designed to suppress freedom of speech, and did historically happen on Thomas Jefferson's watch.

Which has nothing to do with my point topically speaking, in present times.
For the same reason we abhor slavery, even though the Founders practiced it.

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 12, 2015, 08:00:56 AM
There has never been a right to speech that pursues overthrow of the govt.

I think you are wrong about this. The First Amendment was designed specifically to protect the freedom of political speech - and what could be more political then advocating the overthrow of the Government.

When our founders wrote the Constitution they were well aware of the words they had written only a few years earlier which stated, in no uncertain terms...

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

They did not exempt the government they were founding from those "unalienable rights".

Quote from: quiller on January 12, 2015, 07:38:01 AM
I believe he is saying that First Amendment rights you assert to be paramount were in fact soundly ignored by those acts of Congress. He's not saying sedition is cool, he's saying those laws were designed to suppress freedom of speech, and did historically happen on Thomas Jefferson's watch.

If you say it's unconstitutional to stop seditious incitement, then yes, you are promoting sedition.

I'm sick of this childish dickdance / word game.  You keep doing and saying hypocritical, illogical things that enable various forms of destruction.....you're part of it.

It's just like the muslims (and liberal idiots) who claim that the terrorism has nothing to do with islam, and muslims are against it.  Bullshit.  The "Allah Akbar" that gets screamed at every murder and maiming, and the 6 people who say anything against it out of a couple billion (who then must flee & hide immediately) tell a different story.

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 12, 2015, 08:20:28 AM
If you say it's unconstitutional to stop seditious incitement, then yes, you are promoting sedition.

I'm sick of this childish dickdance / word game.  You keep doing and saying hypocritical, illogical things that enable various forms of destruction.....you're part of it.

It's just like the muslims (and liberal idiots) who claim that the terrorism has nothing to do with islam, and muslims are against it.  Bullshit.  The "Allah Akbar" that gets screamed at every murder and maiming, and the 6 people who say anything against it out of a couple billion (who then must flee & hide immediately) tell a different story.

If the "you" in the above was directed at me, retract it. Now.

I was attempting to fairly interpret a statement, neither agreeing or disagreeing.

Quote from: Solar on January 12, 2015, 06:10:36 AM
I'm not following your point at all. Do I have the Right of sedition to the Bill of Rights? Is that your point?

Sorry I formulated the sentence badly, the question I was asking with regards to Kalash point with defending your enemy to your death, whereas your enemy would gladly and actively seek your death is suicidal was not what the Founders sought the first amendment to convey?

Do we have an obligation to defend communist and Islamists that want to use the first amendment to destroy us because we are for liberty even if it means our own death? For example Islamist mullah or whatever they called, calls for the death of Americans by muslims, some muslims take this call to arms and follow through, or communist organizations use first amendment to spread their infiltration which leads to valuable information and tech being stolen from the military and given to your enemies, doesn't the mullah and communist organization have any fault in these crimes just because they have the right to free speech?

Quote from: Mountainshield on January 12, 2015, 09:40:41 AM
Sorry I formulated the sentence badly, the question I was asking with regards to Kalash point with defending your enemy to your death, whereas your enemy would gladly and actively seek your death is suicidal was not what the Founders sought the first amendment to convey?

Do we have an obligation to defend communist and Islamists that want to use the first amendment to destroy us because we are for liberty even if it means our own death? For example Islamist mullah or whatever they called, calls for the death of Americans by muslims, some muslims take this call to arms and follow through, or communist organizations use first amendment to spread their infiltration which leads to valuable information and tech being stolen from the military and given to your enemies, doesn't the mullah and communist organization have any fault in these crimes just because they have the right to free speech?

I don't quite follow still, but if it''s a rhetorical question as to whether we should limit free speech to protect our Liberties, then absolutely not,!
As it's stated, to forego Liberty for safety, is to relinquish freedom. (paraphrased)

Quote from: Mountainshield on January 12, 2015, 09:40:41 AM
Sorry I formulated the sentence badly, the question I was asking with regards to Kalash point with defending your enemy to your death, whereas your enemy would gladly and actively seek your death is suicidal was not what the Founders sought the first amendment to convey?

Do we have an obligation to defend communist and Islamists that want to use the first amendment to destroy us because we are for liberty even if it means our own death? For example Islamist mullah or whatever they called, calls for the death of Americans by muslims, some muslims take this call to arms and follow through, or communist organizations use first amendment to spread their infiltration which leads to valuable information and tech being stolen from the military and given to your enemies, doesn't the mullah and communist organization have any fault in these crimes just because they have the right to free speech?

Here's a good article which may address some of what you question;

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0027.104/--lincoln-s-construction-of-the-executive-power?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Arguably, alien and sedition acts were an attempt to deal with internal influences on both our foreign policy and even, war powers, of the Executive.  This article address the ebb of POTUS power and that our POTUS acts at the weakest ebb of his power when he acts alone. 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No1_Kozinskionline.pdf

Our Founders recognized there might be unforeen dangers facing our nation and they vest great power with the position of our President.  The checks and balances of the other "coequal branches" limiting such power.