I never said that was possible. What I said was that the text here is entirely unambiguous, so there's no need to "interpret" it. Besides, as I pointed out, this issue comes under the right of the free press as well as free speech.

What do you define as a "free press"? Are they allowed to report crimes faithfully?

You seem to think you're making the argument that I'm unable and unqualified to "interpret" the constitution.

Not at all. I'm making the argument that your interpretation of it is wrong.

If, as you say, the 1st amendment protects speech then the FCC is clearly unconstitutional as its sole purpose is to regulate the media.

Again, untrue. All constitutional rights have limits on them. Otherwise the Federal Assault Weapons Ban would have been unconstitutional. It's one of many examples of constitutionally valid law that has placed limits on the Bill of Rights.

If the 1st amendment protects all speech how is it that the government spends so much time and effort regulating speech?

Because all rights have limits on them. The right to privacy, abortions, none of these are unlimited. If that weren't the case then hate speech wouldn't be illegal if it were uttered by a political party. Are you then arguing that white supremacist parties can spew their hate speech with no repercussions? I'm certainly not.

And I'm sure the courts will back you up if I refuse to pay taxes because I intend to use the money to campaign for legalized drugs!

That's absurd and you know it. The right to bear arms, for example, doesn't give you carte blanche to shoot people for no reason. Equally, whilst you do have the right to campaign for legalised drugs (thanks to free speech), that does not give you carte blanche to ignore laws that have a tangential effect on free speech. Murder can be said to "limit" the right to bear arms. But no sane person would ever make that argument. Your argument is similar.

To begin, if something is not "essential or urgent" it is not an emergency.

Exactly. I never said otherwise. Let me quote what I said for you again:

Dealing with the emergency was, clearly, essential or urgent, but there are, as I showed, ways of dealing with emergencies without calling 911. (emphasis added)

In fact, far from countering my argument, you've actually inadvertently added more weight to it. If people can deal with small fires themselves, then calling 911 mustn't be an imperative, otherwise they'd have had to call. The emergency clearly is urgent and it's essential it's dealt with. The fact that can be accomplished without 911 only proves that calling 911 in an emergency is neither essential nor urgent. Thank you.

Speaking of oxymorons take another look at your "involuntary consent," there is no such thing

And yet you said:

As for your take on the law and consent, "informed consent" has been a requirement if "agreements" are to be legally binding under common law for centuries.

If something must be voluntary to be consent, and therefore anything that is not voluntary is, by definition, not consent, what on Earth does "informed consent" mean? Surely if the word "consent" only applies to voluntary consent, all "consent", by your definition, is informed? So why not simply say that consent is all that's required, and if it's not voluntary, then the word doesn't even apply? Why qualify it with the word "informed"? See, it seems you're the one who's arguing that consent is all that's required to make an agreement binding.

In fact my argument has always been that informed consent is required, precisely because it's possible for consent to have been coerced, and that isn't "informed".

Accurate information can be compiled arranged and presented in manners that communicate untrue concepts.

Agreed. But you said, and I quote:

So while, as so many of your arguments are, your statement is accurate it is also patently untrue.

So you're saying that my statement is accurate, and it's untrue. Not that the conclusion I drew was untrue, but that the statement I made was untrue. It is clearly impossible for a single statement to be both accurate and untrue.

It's possible for the statement to be accurate and misleading, and that the conclusion drawn from the statement is therefore untrue, but you didn't say that. You said, and I repeat, one statement was both true and untrue.

What, may I ask, makes you think I was irritated?

I was right, wasn't I? You said:

Your arguments are counter-intuitive, irrational, inconsistent and illogical but you seem to be either oblivious or think none of the above are required to be persuasive. You have every right to do so but I can't debate the irrational, having to try irritates me.

So you're saying I'm irrational, and then saying that debating the irrational irritates you, ergo, debating with me irritates you. And you're debating me. Clearly it would be correct to conclude that you are, therefore, irritated.

Funny how you seem capable of applying the concepts of reading written communication even as you claim they can't be applied to reading the Constitution.

You don't sound like you find any of this "funny". Irritating, yes. Frustrating, possibly, but certainly not "funny".

I notice you've still yet to answer my earlier questions:

Are you arguing that 911 calls shouldn't be recorded at all? Not even for use as evidence in later criminal proceedings?

And if so:

Do we wait for the criminal to strike again before prosecuting? Is it fair to risk the safety of other people, to essentially "create" other victims before we act?.

I'll leave you to mull those over and get back to me.

You simply cannot read the constitution, or anything else, and expect to get the meaning absent some understanding of the background, history, and intent of the communication. You can get a meaning but based only on a text you can't even tell if a document is to be taken seriously or is a joke, if its a final version or merely a draft. Without knowing that the constitution was drafted to be the basis for the American legal system, that it was voted upon and accepted by the American people for that purpose, you don't even know that its the law, unless you happen to think that any document that purports to tell the federal government what it can and cannot do is the law just because its written? You seem to think you're making the argument that I'm unable and unqualified to "interpret" the constitution. What I see you doing is proving you don't know how to read.

If, as you say, the 1st amendment protects speech then the FCC is clearly unconstitutional as its sole purpose is to regulate the media. The NSA must likewise be unconstitutional as its sole purpose is to guard national secrets, to prevent speech on topics the government deems sensitive. Gag orders must be unconstitutional, confidentiality agreements must be unenforceable, copyright laws must be unconstitutional, and what passes for ethics enforcement among lawyers must be unconstitutional... If the 1st amendment protects all speech how is it that the government spends so much time and effort regulating speech? And with court approval?

And I'm sure the courts will back you up if I refuse to pay taxes because I intend to use the money to campaign for legalized drugs! Funding is speech. The First Amendment is on my side! Right?!

As for your use of the OED you seem to have the same difficulty reading dictionaries that you do reading the constitution. Yes, consent is agreement, and like consent agreement must be voluntary. The OED does not back you up.

And no, you did not give "plenty of examples where calling 911 in an emergency was not at all essential or urgent." To begin, if something is not "essential or urgent" it is not an emergency. Your OED definition of "imperative," however is right on point, though like the one on consent, you don't seem to understand it.

Speaking of oxymorons take another look at your "involuntary consent," there is no such thing; and, yes, the definition of consent does mean it has to be voluntary. You're on a site that spcializes in addressing political "framing" with an emphasis on reality vs misinformation and you don't understand that statements can be accurate but untrue? Let me try to explain it to you. Accurate information can be compiled arranged and presented in manners that communicate untrue concepts. In my statement "accurate" refers to constituent phrases and concepts, "untrue" refers to the overall concept being communicated. And it is quite possible, and common in politics, to have both simultaneously.

What, may I ask, makes you think I was irritated? It wasn't in my text. Funny how you seem capable of applying the concepts of reading written communication even as you claim they can't be applied to reading the Constitution.

I can't really debate with you since we don't live on the same planet. You will argue anything. Your arguments are counter-intuitive, irrational, inconsistent and illogical but you seem to be either oblivious or think none of the above are required to be persuasive. You have every right to do so but I can't debate the irrational, having to try irritates me.

How do you base your "original intent" opinion? If it's on the notion that you know what the drafters meant, absent the text to back you up, then I fail to see how that approach is any better than the one you abhor. It's all "interpretation" because you weren't there, you couldn't possibly know what the founders intended.

All you can do is look for clues in the founding fathers other writings, but that still requires you to interpret those, and it invites plenty of selective reasoning. For the record, "original intent" is the mantra of the majority in Citizens United, a case you were bashing not so long ago. It's a favourite of Justice Scalia and conservatives.

If, however, you base it upon what reasonable persons living at the time would have believed to be the ordinary meaning of the text, then the first amendment, given no mention of the term "political" speech or derivatives thereof, protects all speech.

What I do insist on is that either the law is the law

It is. And the first amendment does protect all speech. Glad we got that settled. :-)

Though I'll admit seeing you "prove" absurdities with faulty logic is amusing

You don't actually sound amused at all; you sound irritated.

you inadvertently make my point; intent, and frankly, common-sense, not just formal, transitory, and contextually isolated definitions, must be considered to accurately asses any communication, written or oral

It wasn't inadvertent. That was precisely the point I intended to make. You were the one who said, and I quote:

"Consent," implied or otherwise, must, by definition, be voluntary. (emphasis added)

What I went on to say was that whilst consent is, by definition, not required to be voluntary, society, including the law, requires that it be. All I did was point out that you were wrong regarding your definition of "consent". Which you were. I then went on to point out that legally binding consent, by definition, had to be voluntary.

Or you can continue to believe that torturing someone to gain agreement is "consent" and that the Oxford dictionary says so too.

It's not a belief. Feel free to pick up a copy of the OED and see for yourself. What it isn't is legally binding consent, but then I actually said that myself:

the law doesn't usually take account of involuntary consent. It's still consent, by definition, but the law tends to ignore it.

So I'm not quite sure where you think I said that such consent was legally binding. What I did say was that consent, by definition, needn't actually be voluntary, but that consent to having a 911 call recorded is voluntary, because the call is.

So while, as so many of your arguments are, your statement is accurate it is also patently untrue.

That's an oxymoron if ever I heard one. Allow me to quote the OED again:

untrue
• adjective 1 false or incorrect. 2 not faithful or loyal.

And again:

accurate
/akyoort/

• adjective 1 correct in all details. 2 capable of or successful in reaching the intended target.

Since I wasn't engaging in archery and you weren't, I believe, talking about my love life, the first definition of each word is the one that's relevant. And it's impossible, by definition, to be correct in all details and be incorrect as well.

Since rational, sane, human beings are not suicidal survival is an imperative not a choice just as calling 911 in an emergency is an imperative not a choice.

The first half of that sentence is correct. Survival is, indeed, an imperative. The second half, though, is absurd, when I gave many examples where one needn't call 911 in an emergency. The OED defines imperative as:

• noun an essential or urgent thing.

I've given plenty of examples where calling 911 in an emergency was not at all essential or urgent. Dealing with the emergency was, clearly, essential or urgent, but there are, as I showed, ways of dealing with emergencies without calling 911.

the constitution, including the 1st amendment, does not mandate that if you want official government assistance in an emergency you must first agree to be an unpaid performer for the entertainment of your fellow Americans so corporate media can enhance their profitability.

I couldn't agree more. Which is precisely what I've said all along. Remember, I said from the outset that I think the media shouldn't be able to use 911 calls to ridicule the caller, and that they shouldn't even have access to the recordings whatsoever.

If they were to abuse the transcripts to, as you say, provide "entertainment" or for mocking purposes, then the law could be revisited and a ban on the media having any access to 911 call information, even transcripts, should be put in place. Precisely to protect the callers from what you're talking about.

"informed consent" has been a requirement if "agreements" are to be legally binding under common law for centuries.

Indeed. And I said as much. There's a huge difference, of course, between arguing that involuntary consent is, by definition, not consent (when, I've shown that to be absurd) and saying that, whilst it is, under the dictionary definition, consent, it is not legally binding in civil society. Where exactly is your disagreement with me? It seems like you're looking for one that doesn't exist.

you're the first I've ever heard of to claim that only "consent" not voluntary consent is required.

Nowhere did I say that. You said the definition of consent meant it had to be voluntary. If it did, then the term "voluntary consent" wouldn't be used, because all "consent" would, by definition, be voluntary. The fact that you yourself used that term shows that consent can be involuntary, and still be consent. Legally binding consent? Of course not. But nowhere did I say that, despite what you may think.

I have to ask, because this is becoming a habit, do you always create strawmen when you debate with someone you disagree with?

Actually I don't advocate a strict textual interpretation of the constitution, but I do believe that absent a constitutional amendment the original intent of constitutional provisions govern, not the precedents achieved through scope creep, faulty logic, or bias that amend the constitution by fiat.

What I do insist on is that either the law is the law, including the oh so inconvenient and willfully ignored constitutionally mandated amendment process, or else I too get to pick and choose just what laws I'll recognize just like judges and lawyers do.

Though I'll admit seeing you "prove" absurdities with faulty logic is amusing, you inadvertently make my point; intent, and frankly, common-sense, not just formal, transitory, and contextually isolated definitions, must be considered to accurately asses any communication, written or oral or miscommunication ensues.—Or you can continue to believe that torturing someone to gain agreement is "consent" and that the Oxford dictionary says so too.

As for calling 911 being completely voluntary, of course it is. So is eating and breathing, you can, after all, simply choose to die instead. So while, as so many of your arguments are, your statement is accurate it is also patently untrue. Since rational, sane, human beings are not suicidal survival is an imperative not a choice just as calling 911 in an emergency is an imperative not a choice. We don't choose to have emergencies, we don't choose to require emergency services, when we do have an emergency that we cannot handle ourselves we choose to call emergency services because we have no choice.

Thank-you for your clarification however, allow me to return the favor and reiterate my position as well. People calling 911 seek to obtain help in an emergency they are not volunteering to give up their privacy and become media fodder, and the constitution, including the 1st amendment, does not mandate that if you want official government assistance in an emergency you must first agree to be an unpaid performer for the entertainment of your fellow Americans so corporate media can enhance their profitability.

As for your take on the law and consent, "informed consent" has been a requirement if "agreements" are to be legally binding under common law for centuries. What constitutes "voluntary" is where lawyers like to play but you're the first I've ever heard of to claim that only "consent" not voluntary consent is required.

Not true. Merriam-Webster defines consent as:

1 : to give assent or approval : agree
2 archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment

The Oxford English dictionary defines consent as:

consent
• noun permission or agreement.

— ORIGIN from Latin consentire ‘agree’.

Agreeing to something or giving permission doesn't have to be voluntary. It should be, but it certainly isn't required under the dictionary definition of "consent". Setting aside that factual inaccuracy in your argument, the law doesn't usually take account of involuntary consent. It's still consent, by definition, but the law tends to ignore it.

However the choice to call 911 is clearly voluntary. People often put out small fires without needing firefighters (why else do you see fire extinguishers in many public buildings?), people often drive to hospital because it can be quicker, and people do sometimes defend their own property and person instead of requesting police.

If someone tries to stab you in the street, do you stop and call 911? You might, but you could also run, or try and defend yourself. You clearly have a choice.

What, precisely, do you expect those who don't wish to be recorded do in an emergency?

Are you arguing that 911 calls shouldn't be recorded at all? Not even for use as evidence in later criminal proceedings? If so you go a lot further than Chris.

If all you're talking about is releasing these recordings to the media, nowhere did I say that the media should have access to such recordings, only to a transcript. This would take away the sensationalism the media craves and should therefore lead to much more responsible use of the information in the reporting process.

That, I think, would achieve the same goal without even having to ask the question over whether this is covered by the first amendment. And if it did not lead to more responsible journalism, I'm on record as saying that a ban on media use of the 911 transcripts, as well as the calls themselves, would be justified. So I'm not sure quite what it is you're disagreeing with, because I see a lot of common ground here.

And, as I'm constantly repeating, the 1st amendment protects political speech not any and all speech

That's patently not true. You, on another post, insisted on using a strict textualist interpretation of the constitution, to take the power of judicial interpretation away from the SCOTUS. In that same spirit, here's the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note, I didn't edit it whatsoever. And notice how there's no reference to the speech being political; it clearly says "abridging the freedom of speech". In fact, it goes further, and creates a freedom of the press too. Freedom of the press clearly necessitates allowing the press to responsibly report on criminal matters.

Under Chris' transcript proposal, they would not be stopped from performing this function. Much as the first amendment doesn't protect the press from restrictions over publishing or broadcasting "indecent" material (FEC vs Pacifica), government has a right to prevent sensationalist reporting that serves a limited role in aiding the public in acquiring information, and does more damage to public safety.

The idea that suppressing a government recording of an assault in progress violates the 1st amendment is the kind of lawyerly interpetation (sic) that makes a mockery of law.

You're right. Which is precisely why I never made that argument. I actually totally support suppressing the recording, and believe providing a transcript would mean responsible journalists can still report but that the 911 caller is protected too.

And do we really have to go through the "lawyerly" jibes again? Can we move on from what I do for a living and deal with my arguments on merit please? Thanks.

Clearly the purpose of the 1st amendment is not to inhibit speech. Its not to prevent people from speaking to government officials in an emergency to request assistance unless they're willing to relinquish their privacy, be recorded, and potentially exposed to public humiliation, ridicule, and attack.

Clearly not. Which is why I wholeheartedly agree with Chris' point earlier that:

If people have to worry that their calls are going to be broadcast on the radio next week, they will possibly edit their language, or perhaps not even make the call at all.

I didn't feel it was necessary to quote every passage of Chris' article that I agreed with, but I hope that that clears up your misunderstanding of my position?

However I must take slight issue with what you said. People who call 911 must be assumed to have relinquished some privacy, and to have consented to recordings of 911 calls. As Chris said, these calls are often used as evidence.

Whilst many victims of crime will later consent for these to be used in the court case, some victims might be reluctant to do so. We don't cease all prosecutions because the victim no longer wants to go forward, as the criminal justice system doesn't exist solely to get justice for victims; it serves to protect the public too.

In cases where the victim doesn't want to consent to the use of the recording and would be an unreliable witness on the stand (in such cases they often would rather lie just to spite the prosecution for going against their wishes, and understandably too), the public safety is thereby jeopardised if DAs can't use the recording.

Do we wait for the criminal to strike again before prosecuting? Is it fair to risk the safety of other people, to essentially "create" other victims before we act?

Where the media is concerned, this consent is largely mitigated, so I think that even a heavily redacted transcript of calls is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in that information without unduly burdening people who call 911 in an emergency.

"Consent," implied or otherwise, must, by definition, be voluntary. When you have no choice, by definition, your actions are not voluntary.

What, precisely, do you expect those who don't wish to be recorded do in an emergency? Put out their own fires if they're unwilling to speak publicly on-record? Find their own way to hospital instead of calling for assistance when having a heart attack or stroke? Defend their own property and person instead of requesting police?

And, as I'm constantly repeating, the 1st amendment protects political speech not any and all speech.

The idea that suppressing a government recording of an assault in progress violates the 1st amendment is the kind of lawyerly interpetation that makes a mockery of law.

Clearly the purpose of the 1st amendment is not to inhibit speech. Its not to prevent people from speaking to government officials in an emergency to request assistance unless they're willing to relinquish their privacy, be recorded, and potentially exposed to public humiliation, ridicule, and attack.

Song writers and poets will eternally seek the electric emotional jolt of a new metaphor for love or sentiment or holy bliss and the great mass of the hoi poloi will eternally percolate up new slang terms for our darkest urges and bodily practices.

Like King Alfred telling the tide to cease rising, we need to do our best to fight the good fight -- however we see that -- but don't get bogged down in
eternally and only scraping the mud (or worse) off
our boots. Live like Brer Rabbit in the Briar Patch. "To quote the old song about the red, red robin: "Live, Love, Laugh and be happy" -- especially the laughing part.

Isn't there implicit consent to being recorded when you call 911 as you know they always record? It still shouldn't be public record, but I wouldn't use lack of consent as the basis for that argument for that precise reason; there's implied consent.

we no longer have public executions in this country for a reason -- to deny the sensationalistic aspects of it to the media.

That's the argument I like. To be fair, I actually like your compromise approach of a transcript, largely as I think it would lead to a de facto decrease in the use of 911 calls in the media anyway, without actually having to resort to banning their use.

If the media continued to abuse this privilege then a ban is definitely warranted.

who exactly would apply for a job which involves looking at naked images of children for a large part of the day.

Our media is unduly obsessed with paedophiles. It's like they see one around every corner. Many people somehow think that paedophilia is a new thing, and kids were safer in the "good old days". I'm certain that's a million miles from the truth.

So strict, in fact, that in Britain the body scan machines themselves are, technically, illegal. It is illegal to produce any images of naked children

Not sure that's true. The picture must be "indecent" (not necessarily naked) and that isn't defined in the statute. Is a bodyscan "indecent"? It's certainly open to debate. I'd argue it probably isn't all that titillating for paedophiles, but who really knows?

Besides, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 amended the Protection of Children Act 1978 to incorporate an exception for "prevention, detection or investigation of a crime...in any part of the world". We do have the same sort of loophole as the US.

But security law trumps privacy law... or does it? That is the general argument across the pond, as it were.

We don't really believe in all that "privacy" nonsense. Outside of your own home, privacy is of secondary consideration, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Who on Earth said that human beings have a right to privacy? Madness!

And that may be an impossible thing to legislate, because it's (on a certain level) trying to screen for "thoughtcrime"

I hate the idea of legislating for thoughtcrimes. Which is precisely why I believe that possession of child pornography shouldn't be illegal. It's not that I don't think think it's disgusting (I do) but people should not be prosecuted for thoughtcrimes.

Distribution of such harmful materials has long been illegal and has been deemed not to have the same chilling effect on free speech. Making such materials involves child abuse, which is already illegal as a crime of action not thought. So I have no qualms about prosecuting both to the full extent of the law.

But possession is just too close to punishing someone for their desires (rather than for actions they took based on these desires). We may (and I do) find these desires disgusting, but there was a time when homosexuality was illegal and in the DSM.

Protecting children is a key goal for law enforcement. Punishing people's sexuality, however it's manifested, is not. We need to achieve the former without the latter.

How do you tell a pedophile from a non-pedophile, when deciding which applicant to hire, in other words?

You don't. The same way that the military didn't realise Nidal Hasan was a crazy man until he killed 13 people. The same way that the police can't weed out potential racists before recruiting them. Sadly, you just never know.

It's really no different to a paedophile managing to get a job in law enforcement, in vice, having access to the child porn used in sting operations. The best you can do is a standard background check and hope something comes up. It's unfortunate.

Even banning Christian "curse words" -- what the law would assumably also be addressing -- would run smack into the First Amendment.

On two grounds. Obviously there's the "freedom of speech" clause, but I'd argue that banning Christian "curse words" whilst not banning those frowned upon in other faiths would be quite close to a "law respecting an establishment of religion" and we both know how broadly that clause has been defined in the past.

I get why they did what they did, and I get that you exaggerated for effect, but that sort of law is just a dangerous road to go down. It starts as harmless enough, but it could soon descend into laws that are genuinely destructive to free speech. So I for one wholeheartedly support your little spot of "civil disobedience" to make a point.]