Replies

The Constitution relies on the citizenry to be wise and thoughtful and reasonable - it does not, and cannot, rely on a judiciary functioning as high-priests of the Constitution, divining things like "original intent" from wherever they can. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, et cetera - they would, all of them, rightly be horrified at the suggestion that their words were to be read as gospel, that we should essentially stop thinking for ourselves, and that is exactly what both of those doctrines require, when taken to their logical conclusions. There are too many situations that arise where "strict constructionism" or "original intent", rigidly applied, will lead to perverse results that are in opposition to the basic principles outlined in the Bill of Rights - the Constitution demands that we must think for ourselves, more so than those doctrines will always allow.

The words of the Constitution itself should be the principle source of its interpretation. Whether the words "no law...abridging the freedom of speech" applies to the internet depends only and entirely on whether one honestly thinks that messages sent over the internet (such as all of our postings here) are rightfully to be considered "speech," as the Framers would have understood the term. In other words, would James Madison (or other educated persons of that era) think that this comment I'm making is "speech?" That's the right methodology of interpretation.

The words of the Constitution are not properly understood as the set of all their late 18th-century referents, but instead as a function of their semiotic sense. The sense of words is how we normally interpret their meaning in a legal context.

The words of the Constitution itself should be the principle source of its interpretation. Whether the words "no law...abridging the freedom of speech" applies to the internet depends only and entirely on whether one honestly thinks that messages sent over the internet (such as all of our postings here) are rightfully to be considered "speech," as the Framers would have understood the term.

Is there doubt in your mind that our posts are ~not~ protected free speech?

In other words, would James Madison (or other educated persons of that era) think that this comment I'm making is "speech?" That's the right methodology of interpretation.
The words of the Constitution are not properly understood as the set of all their late 18th-century referents, but instead as a function of their semiotic sense. The sense of words is how we normally interpret their meaning in a legal context.

"Semonic sense" is necessary to understand the constitution?
-- Amusing idea, as that site is non-sensible pretentious blather, imo.

Whether the words "no law...abridging the freedom of speech" applies to the internet depends only and entirely on whether one honestly thinks that messages sent over the internet (such as all of our postings here) are rightfully to be considered "speech," as the Framers would have understood the term. In other words, would James Madison (or other educated persons of that era) think that this comment I'm making is "speech?" That's the right methodology of interpretation.

I agree in principle, but problems occasionally arise when we start thinking in those terms, not least of which because they weren't always consistent in what they said or what they meant. Many of those same founders who signed off on the First Amendment later brought you the Sedition Act. They seemed to think that it was consistent with the First Amendment, but I'm not so sure we want to make the same reconciliation between the two that they did.