Nobody can enforce free speech Rights whether we say something nice, mean, true or untrue.
Why? Because the moment you allow the Gov to criminalize 1 word or phrase, they will use that as an excuse to criminalize many other words and phrases especially those that go against their own self interests.
Although there are certain things that should not be said to another human being, we the People enforce that through social norms. If someone crosses a social norm, we chin check them either verbally or even sometimes it can get physical but the law has no business in policing words. Take that shit to the Communist Country you so admire you Communist pig.
Even if someone says "fire" in a movie theatre as a joke would get his ass kicked by us but cannot be prosecuted because that is free speech unless a stampede caused people to get hurt or die. Then that would have to go up before a Jury trial to see if the Jury finds the person guilty for the victims that were created out of the scene. But the word "fire" is not enough to arrest anyone as that is his free speech Rights. But knowing that he would get his ass kicked by the audience is enough to shut such rascals down. There aren't many rascals that bad anyway so it doesn't happen most of the time. I've never heard of it.
Even in Court, if the Judge say you cannot say this or that, or speak about the case, etc.., he is violating your Rights and shrugging that off makes these tyrants even worst.
The solution that many are doing now is suing the shit out of any gov official that farts sideways with free speech Rights violations. They often make $5,000,000 per lawsuit and the lawsuit takes about 1-2 years max. A probono attorney will work for free as long as you give him a large portion of the profits (ie go 50/50 on the $5,000,000).
This technique can be used on any Constitutional Rights violations like the 4th amendment, 2nd amendment, etc..
It's like a new fad that is picking up because people are getting paid to defend freedom. It's not even hard. The lawyer does most of the work and by the time it's over, you become a millionaire hero.
No forget voting. Abolish.
How? By voting for it? You know it won’t happen.
It will happen through natural causes.
So never, then.
There's only one cause (nature) for each effect (being) within...suggested pluralism (causes) tempts ones consent by voting.
Few are governing many by plurality...nature sets each being free from one another.
The founding daddies wouldn't approve that. They presupposed voting in their freemasonic enlightened republic. You complaining about free speech suppression and suggesting democracy be suspended is a contradiction.
Then what is the ideal goverment type, in your view?
Dual eagled monarchy aka symphonia where Church and state have unique roles in the governance and the monarch himself assumes a minor clerical office (a deacon). Thus state policy is influenced by the Church and its moral teachings.
A historical example would be the Byzantine empire which is the longest standing empire in history. It coincided with the golden age of the Orthodox Catholic Church and the ecumenical councils where the orthodox faith was dogmatized (this is the true Chruch before the falling away of Rome; it is now known as the Eastern Orthodox Church).
But when the LGTBQAZDJEJOSOV agenda takes over that church, then what? What happens when the inevitable Doctrinal Error creeps throughout it? Or what if the monarch is bribed?
The Hapsburgian of the Old World Order empire had the dual eagled monarchy as it's symbol and monarchy as its way.
I spoke with an individual who wrote books for academia and was considered the premiere authority on the Balkans. He considered Germany/Austria his true homeland. He confided to me that he was a dyed in the wool monarchist an opinion shared secretly by many of his colleagues. A monarchist will nearly always find a need to control the church and religions or vice-versa, as occurred in both world wars, as well as countless times in prior history. Our founding fathers knew better than to attempt to weld two powers that were impossible to remove, hence the 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' that stipulates a ban on both oppression of religion and the establishing of a state religion. The founding fathers had an array of beliefs, many considered 'deist', rather than given a specific denomination for reasons that need to be investigated to understand. Sharia law or an equivalent is the very thing we as a democracy now fight. Interesting that the Christian hero, Jesus, was accused of breaking both religious and political laws. The fleur-dis-leurs of the monarchy adds the military as a three-pronged weapon (spearhead)....against whom exactly? An unremovable principality is absolute power and complete power corrupts absolutely. Look at the churches divide and fight today. If free speech isn't allowed for free minds to find they the people's solution to their problems, then you didn't learn from history, nor understand the solution posited by the founding fathers, and are doomed to repeat.
Both idealism (ideal) and symbolism (type) represent tools by others to govern ones mind. Letting go of ideals/idols prevents others from governing ones mind.
Read the part where the founding fathers says if shit goes sideways, abolish and make whatever we want that works for us.
Great. Now we have to get clear who decides what works and who is "us"?
THEY implies ones singular vote for a plurality of others. Holding onto the plurality implies the supposition.
Viewing freemasonry as a plurality/group/brotherhood of man etc. tempts one to ignore that each of the 33 steps is about setting oneself free from others.
Masonry implies building walls (ignorance) by joining (consent) bricks (suggested information) together, which one can only do by "free" will of choice.
Because suggestion contradicts perception.