There needs to be a clear understanding of the meaning of the first amendment, since there's no indication that its meaning changes depending on the exigencies that the country's faced with. Thus, if it allows government to prohibit certain types of utterances now, it allows it to do so anytime.
As I said earlier, I don't believe that the amendment prohibits laws against seditious libel, or any other kind of libel. Dissent, on the other hand, is not in and of itself libel, and it appears that the 1st was explicitly written to protect it. And if we're going to have laws against libel, then government needs to be bound by such laws as well. For example the compiling and publishing of lists of "subversive organizations", without evidence that they had violated any laws, would have to be disallowed, since that is just as defamatory as calling the government a subversive organization, without basis. There needs to be complete parity between the people and government in terms of what is and is not allowed.
dissent.. libel .. rights .. whewww!!
Even the Founding Fathers knew there would be snakes and rats in the granaries from time to time.
Your points are well taken. The question is, "What price freedom and liberty for all?" In our day and age, we are again confronted with those who work from within our own system to overthrow it. Do we turn a blind eye or .. ?
Many say the PATRIOT Act goes too far, some say, it doesn't go far enough. On a day when thousands protest, do we just turn our heads and hope for the best, or do we exercise our rights to confront the protesters wherever they may gather? Or do we ask the government sworn to protect the nation to move to stifle the dissent that is not born of reason, but of anarchy.