Thursday, April 26, 2007
Indicia is masquerading as free speech before our Courts...
Webster defines speech as: that which is spoken, utterance, remark, etc. As you read this, keep in mind this is NOT speech. Should Webster's definition fail to register, simply apply the following rule of thumb: if you can see it, it's NOT speech. All forms of indicia is exactly that, indicia and NOT speech. How is it that reasonably intelligent people fail to understand the definition of the word speech, most notably when being associated with our constitution's first amendment?
Our Founding Fathers wrote into the constitution exactly what they intended. If they had wanted the 1st Amendment to include indicia, they would have explicitly done so. Extrapolating the first amendment by attempting to substitute the nebulous concept "freedom of expression" for speech just doesn't wash. If it is the intention of those wanting to go beyond the specific language in the constitution, there is a provision to do so. That provision is called an amendment. The constitution has been amended over the years incorporating new demands of our society.
So why does the Court continue to confuse indicia and speech relative to 1st amendment arguments? Remember, if you can see it, it's NOT speech.
Webster defines speech as: that which is spoken, utterance, remark, etc. As you read this, keep in mind this is NOT speech. Should Webster's definition fail to register, simply apply the following rule of thumb: if you can see it, it's NOT speech. All forms of indicia is exactly that, indicia and NOT speech. How is it that reasonably intelligent people fail to understand the definition of the word speech, most notably when being associated with our constitution's first amendment?
Our Founding Fathers wrote into the constitution exactly what they intended. If they had wanted the 1st Amendment to include indicia, they would have explicitly done so. Extrapolating the first amendment by attempting to substitute the nebulous concept "freedom of expression" for speech just doesn't wash. If it is the intention of those wanting to go beyond the specific language in the constitution, there is a provision to do so. That provision is called an amendment. The constitution has been amended over the years incorporating new demands of our society.
So why does the Court continue to confuse indicia and speech relative to 1st amendment arguments? Remember, if you can see it, it's NOT speech.
Labels: Free Speech
