Free speech and redressing grievances without getting beat up???

In part one, we examined the concept of “Natural Law”, and the three basic rights that are given to men by nature and nature’s God: life, liberty and property.  When people think of the First Amendment, the liberty of being able to speak their minds and voice their opinions is the first thing that comes to mind.  That “freedom of speech” is specifically protected because there is often disagreement and even offense taken over facts and opinions people voice.  Particularly when the facts or opinions voiced go against the “main stream” popular opinion, or against the government itself, or against some “taboo” of a group, religion, political party or popular person.
The essence of “freedom of speech” is not to protect speech that “everyone” agrees with, or that agrees with the government, but to protect speech that is unpopular, disagreeable, offensive and even subversive.  Because speech that is agreeable and inoffensive doesn’t need to be protected.

To be clear, you have the right to disagree, argue with, voice dissenting opinions, even to the point of “offense”, to anyone whether they be your neighbor, politicians, pundits, religious figures or popular “personalities”.  The only limitation is deliberate “slander” or “libel”, meant to destroy the reputation of people or groups and consisting of deliberate lies.  Even that isn’t a true limitation, because it has to be proven in a court of law.

“Offensive speech” is protected speech.  There is no right to be free from offense, to be free from being “offended”. Offense is something taken, not given.  Even if someone  deliberately tries to offend you with what they say, you can choose not to take offense.  The phrase “offensive speech” is a straw man, a logical fallacy used to prevent speech about, and actual debate of controversial topics.  It is similar to another long touted straw man: “shouting fire in a crowed theater”.  Logically, if the theater is on fire that is the most rational response along with vacating the theater as fast as possible.  If you are mistaken, you at least erred on the side of caution and not getting burned.  If you are deliberately trying to cause havoc, social and legal consequences will be paid.  There is no need to make such speech illegal, as any such law would not prevent an actual fire, but may prevent the rational response.  The same with calling any type of speech “offensive”.  If you stated a simple fact “the sky is blue”, a person with the opinion that the sky is green could take offense at that.  A simple debate, color charts, and science would prove the truth of that fact, so the defense of the indefensible is to take offense and demand you be silenced.

“Offensive speech” is a rationalization for violence and censorship.  Where voicing a political, social, or religious opinion, because of it’s content, is deemed offensive (by whoever, usually some “authority”) it is often called “hate speech”. This is done whether or not the content of the speech actually advocates hating any  person, group or religion.  Even voicing simple facts backed up by evidence, science and rational thought can be considered “hate speech” by people who wish to deny those  facts.  “Hate” in this context is considered an aggressive act, provoking a defensive response, often invoking aggressive policing, even irrational aggression against the speaker.  Speech, no matter what it’s contents, cannot cause harm, injure physically, or destroy anything.  Someone saying “I hate you” doesn’t hurt you, you can disagree, debate, or even close your ears and ignore it.  Advocating violence, hatred of people or groups can always be countered by advocating peace and love.  Silencing speech of any kind is only effective in protecting ideas that have no rational defense, and maintaining control over the people that accept them.
To maintain a lie, it is necessary to conceal the truth.

“the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  From the beginning of our nation, real offenses against freedom have existed, often perpetrated and protected by our own government.  Our government was formed by “We the people” in response to the English government’s suppression of the right to petition against it.  Often the response was violent suppression using the military and repressive law enforcement.  One such act March 5th, 1770 was the “Boston Massacre”.  Speech against the government is often considered “seditious” by the government and it’s minions, which is why it is protected by law (The Constitution IS law).  Because private entities often take the place of government in our lives (such as corporations, unions etc.) that right also pertains to them as well.
The right of the people to peaceably assemble is not limited to petitioning the government, but is in addition to.  That is why the “and” is in the text.  There is no such thing as an “unlawful assembly” as long as it is peaceable.

Any authority declaring a peaceful group of protestors an “unlawful assembly” is going against the text and spirit of the first amendment.

<Next, The meaning of the Second Amendment>