The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is from an understanding that can come from the practice of free speech. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It predates the Declaration of Independence which plagiarized part of it, then the framers of the constitution later eviscerated the title for the first amendments, "Free Speech".

This can be explained by the competitive nature of different factions in that society trying to see their perspectives integrated into the new Declaration of Independence.

Logically if the Declaration of Independence grants life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it also implies respect for that certain speech which evokes the greater meanings needed by people manifesting such principles in their living, whereupon life is protected, liberty is secured, and happiness more likely. The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" simply says we recognize that we will not devalue speech by not failing in our common recognition of the different values of speech, their related importance to our purposes, defined hopefully; and generalizing speech as all being equal, when it is clearly not will end. When it comes to the freedom to speak, this is not an issue, when it comes to which speech is justifiably commonly supported and empowered, such distinction is an issue. America needs to (and does, public access tv) be able to define which speech is empowered by the public. Not access only, but production as well. The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" provides the traditional values as description of human psychological attributes, encouraging an inherently functional structure of human mental and spiritual performance, or capacities that represent civilized, peaceful people cooperating in living.

Consider the impossible task of becoming sustainable, or consider the alternative, destroying our ecospheres delicate, healthy balance completely without some system like this. If we do not, destruction will eventually happen, probably by toxicity rather than warming. There are changes that need to be enacted to avoid this, wars ended, energy economies converted, many small sacrifices must be made. The ongoing civil discussion needed to properly do that is an absolute necessity to create understanding and optimized cooperation. Corporations and government will not do this for us.

When corporations were granted the rights of individuals and technology enabled mass media, the capacity to deceive and mislead away from prime constitutional intent of protecting life into indulgences falsely justified as freedoms that end up threatening life. Those that did this have now directed our enslaved energy at conducting war on other peoples.

The internet goes back to usenet, and public access to the internet switches over to commercial instituted and developed as a market, with funding paid congressional allocation, that has participated in the un constitutional corruption of Americans. Now take in television and it becomes generations. At this point there are very few Americans capable of supporting and defending it meaningfully with robust agreement upon its higher principles standing ready to weave them into whatever activity might be chosen.

Christopher A. Brown, August 10, 2011

Statement of the problem:
Americans common knowledge base has been distorted by global conspiracy of the last century while present day media refuses to share vital information concerning all of their lives. Media is fully complicit in omitting vital facts and neglecting the public trust role of educating and keeping relevant facts before the public. Clearly, corporate America can no longer be trusted to carry needed facts of controversy to and between the public with faithful authority compensating and utilizing Americas centralized academia to verify information. Special interest broadly interferes. This is an abridgment of free speech using material power to make corporate, non human voices louder than the voice of human beings.
The real situation is worse because misleading, corrupting and distracting information is placed in front of the public day after day interspersed with divisive exploitation's of wants, desires and neglecting information about the public long term needs. The action, speaking louder than words, can only be intended to cause fear, division and confusion disabling the population from unity.

Related facts:
A biological fact is that humanity survived to this day because they were able to communicate and coordinate as unified groups at critical points of adaptation. It is reasonable to assume those groups so challenged, responded quickly enough, defining the need for change to survive. It is safe to assume they were likely practiced in evaluating speech for its potential qualities that unified them and enhanced their preparedness to adapt or survive.
There is an assumption therein that they were subject to enough freedom within their society to unify around commonly understood meanings by being able to vocally support them with their inherent reasoning which was sourced from the peoples common knowledge whereupon coordinated effective action was taken by the group.

Discussion of the facts:
All mass media is corporately owned a simple observation can discern uniformity with info regarding extreme controversy. Basically very little info but lots of skewed focus and spin. If a citizen had proof of treason, that citizen would be unable to share it meaningfully and the public would be totally unable to see any form of equal protection of law nor could the constitution be effectively supported and defended. This is an unconstitutional condition and cannot be allowed to remain. Citizens of the republic must be able to practice constitutionally valid speech, and such needs definition by the constitution, having the needed meanings in order to preserve the republic. Priority and principle need to be observed then acted upon.

Conclusions and recommendations:
Historical, political, cultural research found a little recorded doctrine of natural law that is a blend between stoic law, natural law and biology or psychology. The doctrine existed long before the forming of the United States. It is called the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech". From it was eviscerated the prime principles of the nation, "life, liberty which are listed in the Declaration of Independence. In 1792 the Bill of Rights removed "Free Speech" from the title of the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" and incorporated it in the First Amendment. The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" can come from the practice of free speech and the understanding that it may create between people. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A completely logical sequence in concept.
Related facts show that simply to be free to go yell in the park on a soap box amidst a confused and disoriented society will not see the needed sharing for support and defense of the Constitution or survival in the longer run. Logically, within its prime intent constitutionally, the pubic must be able to commandeer commercial mass media, if necessary, for whatever periods are needed to support and defend the constitution. Then mass media needs to be made accountable for at least helping to repair the damage they have done by helping the public to meet the standards they have made the public expect while losing respect for the intent of the constitution. The human attributes of the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" are such that they can be specifically, issue by issue, be used as criteria to define when speech is most constitutional and that speech is the speech that needs to have the meaning created by public support. Clearly the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is something that can be used by parents to teach their children the very best behaviors possible for integration into a society that will survive.
It is recommended for human survival on planet Earth that the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" be integrated into the First Amendment by the use of an Article V convention.