The First Amendment of the US Constitution & Free Speech

[Mr. E]

Free speech is never free.

And remember TANSTAAFL.

Some people may not be as well read as you.

TANSTAAFL stands for There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

In other words, everything has a price. People that think that the government should pay for things have to remember that the government has to take that money from someone else to finance what you want.

The phrase was coined in the book "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" By Robert Heinlein. May he rest in peace. I reccomend the book for thinking people.

In the case of free speech, or any freedom, the price is those willing to stand up and fight for them. Those that sit back and complain about how things are running without putting their tender pink butts on the line are selling out the future for their own gain. I think it was Jefferson that said that the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots to nourish it.

 

[Manseau]

[/FONT]

If there is a governing authority that issues "permits" that dictate the terms of participation ... is it "free speech"?

I was going to reply but 2007, geez, I hope we are a little smarter.

 

[DennisBreene]

I was going to reply but 2007, geez, I hope we are a little smarter.

Don't count on it.

 

[Sukerkin]

Interesting thread topic despite it's initial post date . I must have missed this when it passed by the first time, so it was good to read some well expressed views on the subject.

 

[ballen0351]

I was going to reply but.

Umm you did reply.

 

[oftheherd1]

I have thought, and said, for the last few years that a better choice for the US Supreme court, than the usual lawyers and judges that get appointed would be an 18th century literature scholar. If the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution, and tell us what it means, who would be better?

Interesting idea, but the US Constitution is a legal document.

I think the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the bills passed by the United States Congress, that are signed into law by the President. I think far more of those laws are written and intended with late 20th and early 21st century sensabilities. An 18th century literature scholar may be very much out of place in that world.

The Supreme Court has taken on duties that were hotly debated when they did so.

 

[oftheherd1]

Dredd Scot set a precedent, as did Brown v Board of Education, as did Justice Black in Everson v Board of Education, by quoting a private letter, and getting it out of context and wrong. Relying on precedent is an easy way to avoid making an unpopular decision. Relying on precedent saves people the work of thinking and reasoning out what is right and just.
Interpreting what they meant then by what the words mean now seems to be a really good way to get a completely wrong idea...

There is evidence that the oft quoted "... wall of separation between church and state ... " was quoted out of context as well.