As long as opinion doesn't instigate laws that enforce that opinion as the way things are and so one must live by opinions that corrupt true law or natural law, by the restriction on opinions that the opinionated law says should be restricted because it is hate speech or any other kind of speech the law makers decide is not for the good of all. Give them that power and soon it will be that words of government dissent will get one arrested....Hmmm.

In the context he seems to mean this I agree as trouble is a part of life and speech such as Shaw refers to exposes potential problems to those who might not otherwise see them or want to see them.

Man is this an understatement. Great quote.

There should be no censorship, All information should be available so as to discover truth because how is truth discovered without the lies that cover it up and in reverse how are lies identified without the truth to prove their fallacy? All information is necessary for the right decisions to be made. Censorship reflects the views of those that don't want you to know something and our government uses the excuse that it's for the good of all when it really can't be because the lack of any knowledge can be a detriment to an individual when desiring to make a right decision. All knowledge is good but only truthful knowledge gained from all information will do anyone any good.

RBESRQ----Where is your evidence that those words incite or incited anyone to act upon the words? Where is the crime other than your promotion of restrictions on the right of free speech? I do see how in the example of a lynch mob where there is evidence of the words of one or a few causing an injustice but it is ultimately the reponsibility of every individual who acted upon the words and not the man/men who said them. It was their choice to do so and so their responsibility. If the man who said the words placed the rope and kicked out the stool then the responsibility falls on him for the lynching causing the unjust without a trial death but until that death there is no crime. In the case of Hitler who galvanized a whole country based on his words, why wasn't he arrested for crimes before the fact of any action based on his words? We know the effect his words had on the people then but those who acted upon them are much more responsible for all the death than he was or ever could be. All he did was speak and as evidenced by the fact there are people out there who promote and say what you've said and they continue to do so proves free speech still exists to some extent in America and that's the way it should be. Would you take their right away? Archer said it well, I have the right to speak and he has the right to choose to act or not based on what I said as he also has the right to tell me to go to hell. Again, well said Archer!

All of these rights to do are the result of the right to freely choose what one wants to do. The freedom of choice is the first freedom an individual has by nature and without it the individual is not free. This is the right (power) that gives the individual the freedom to say yes or no to who or that which would control his life with or without his consent.

The quote speaks for itself. Agreed.

The only thought they want Americans to have now is that it is a necessity for Americans to depend on their government to lead the way out of our problems and to chill out if the problems don't go away because it'll take time to fix them. Trust us.

A man's worst difficulties begin when he thinks what he likes is good for him but it's really not.

Absolute freedom does exist innately in the individual and how much he expresses in the physical world rests between the status of anarchist and slave. The only limitations on freedom are those self imposed voluntatily by the anarchist in his case in respect of others rights and in the case of the slave limitations are forced upon him just as thousands of laws are imposed on Americans today. We are all born anarchists and once self restraints become restraints imposed by others the dissent into slavery begins.

Mike, you said ..."Atheist Utopia's tyranny and despotism, we need to return to a separation of church and state and a government of law." Exactly, we need to remove the Atheist Utopia's RELIGION from its control over American so Americans can return to having the rule of natural law dictating the respect of the rights of the individual protected by our Constitution over them again for that is what the atheist's purely scientific amoral ethical vision of the world is, their religion and so their utopian idea. These visions of utopia, like other ideas of religious utopia, must be put back behind the wall of separation subordinate to the rule of law like anybody elses and where other religiously held beliefs of organized religions are kept to prevent their manmade doctrines of utopian control of all free individuals through the creation of civil laws that control every aspect of an individuals life from cradle to grave that force individuals to fit the criteria needed for compliance to the dictates for the creation of their utopia. That wall of separation was built on the foundation of belief in the natural rights of man which are self evident truths to keep any religiously held belief of a vision of utopia from influencing civil laws created under the rule of natural law.

It keeps the dirt of slavery off one.

Agree Mike.

Yep, and that's a natural effect no one will be unaffected by.

Waffler, the unit cohesion exists is spirit and the rest will naturally take care of itself no matter how haphazard it may seem to happen.

J Carlton, your patriotism is admirable.

Yes Waffler and a proclamation FOR the rule of self government which is a broadside against any and all rule that violates the rule of natural law that proclaims the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Take your false reading and remember this..."That whenever ANY form of government becomes destructive to these ends,"...--Caps mine.

I say any 4th of July celebration you attend freedom in America should be brought up in conversation because I can't think of a better time to do it as the clock is ticking away.

Passing the Rubicon is a crossing every individual in America will have to decide whether to make for themselves one day.

Excellent link Logan and I recommend it to anyone who is seeking answers. Nothing but the individual possesses rights.

kyle, basin, because you're posting here you must have questions you're seeking answers to so just keep seeking with a questioning mind and you will eventually know what to think. Don't decide one way or the other based on confusion which is caused by lack of knowledge. Take the time to teach yourself and don't rely on teachers on either side.

Joel from Rochester, stop believing and start knowing what you say is the truth because it is.

The self government is best that governs himself the most.

I agree with you Logan and add so that it might be understood closer to the natural law truth of it ----"laws that were given to each and every individual by their "Creator" -- laws that have proven historically invaluable in many cultures and times in maintaining individual rights and protection..." and laws that have proven in many cultures and times the only laws that have ensured mankinds survival because the free exercise of those laws which are rights are the very survival tools nature's Creator gave to each and every individual and by nature if one individual survives in this way so too all individuals and thus the natural beginning point for cooperative society in those cultures and times you spoke of that through upheaval re-ensured the survival of mankind.

You're right Logan and that's where Waffler gets the idea the SOVEREIGN states can't leave the union.