Please don't confuse the World Wide Web Consortium with the shitty spam farm known as W3Schools.

This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!

What we need is to extend copyright, broader and stronger patents and generaly to beef up all IP laws. How about automatic injunctions for all accusations of patent infringement, like SOPA and PIPA gives copyright holders? That should spur on innovation!

Oh, and cut taxes and gov't spending!

The founders' opinions are important because they inform us as to the meaning of the Constitution. And the Constitution is important because it defines the federal government. It has an amendment process that has been used 27 times, so it has been re-written to some degree. For the most part, the Constitution is not ambiguous. For example, the famous controversies in interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment arose because certain people did not like the plain meaning of the text. The meanings were clear to the people who wrote and passed those sections. The intent can be unambiguously determined by examining the debates surrounding their passage. The 2nd amendment was intended to protect an individual right to own and carry military-grade weapons in public. The privileges or immunities clause was supposed to prevent states from violating rights enshrined in the Constitution. Both clauses have been twisted to entirely different and illogical meanings by judges who didn't like the original intent. That is why the original meaning is important. The purpose of the document lies in semantics. If you don't respect the original intent, then you're changing the semantics and you might as well re-write the document. That's why there is an amendment process. The Constitution is not perfect, but it is a very well thought-out document. There were several novel and ingenious aspects to the government it created. One particularly good idea was to enumerate all activities permitted to the government, rather than attempt to enumerate prohibitions. This was intended to preserve liberty by limiting the role of government. Unfortunately the narrow scope of enumerated powers has failed to limit the role of the federal government, but the failure was not necessarily in the Constitution itself; the boundaries have simply been ignored. That is why some Americans seem to worship the Constitution. The government has steadily usurped powers that it was not supposed to have, and whittled away at all manner of guaranteed individual rights. If we did things the "right" way by strictly following the Constitution, American society would be very different and some people might prefer that. (There would also be drawbacks. I tend to like this idea, but some amendments would be necessary.) Consider this: in the founders' time, there were no income taxes or professional police departments. The federal government was originally oriented toward matters of foreign policy, and revenue was provided by tariffs. The founders probably would have considered modern policing to be similar to the standing armies that they feared as instruments of oppression. And nobody would have thought the federal government could restrict the plants that people grow on their own land, the food they eat or sell locally, or the weapons they carry when traveling. George Washington's cabinet had what, 4 members? Contrast that with modern times.

The sticking part of the Sedition Act is this: "shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal [...] language about the form of government of the United States". This is where it essentially makes any opinion against the government criminal, and that is unconstitutional. Where this was moderated in modern American law is that it was narrowed down to 'overthrowing'. It is quite a different and more specific matter than the broad word 'disloyal' which was used in that period to charge and imprison many persons who did not advocate anything more than "radical" (relative to the American mainstream) ideologies or systems of government. The legal prohibition of advocating the overthrow of the government is constitutional because such an overthrow would necessitate illegal means (violence, coercion), whereas the earlier prohibition of 'disloyal language' effectively bars otherwise constitutionally protected activities of organizing political movements and voting for change within the existing political framework. How's that for indefensible, condescending AC shitbag?

"You have the right to speak regardless of which medium you choose to exercise this right." But their is no write to the access to that medium.

You can not just walk into a TV station and demand a half hour of time, you can not walk into a print shop and demand they print your document. You can not demand access to the internet.

The internet like tv, radio, paper, and ink are resources not rights.

Of course they can deny your access. If you do not own a printing press you can be denied access to one. For radio and TV not only must you have the money to own, rent, or the permission of the owner you must also follow the FCC rules on profanity transmitting power and so on. For the Internet you must have the money to pay for access to it. That is where it is not a right. Freedom of speech means that you can say what ever you want but the available means of communication are not rights outside of using your own mouth and or writing with your own hand and resources.

So internet access is not a right as covered under the 1st amendment of the constitution. It is just another tool of communication no different than a printing press. A tool that is used by both individuals and the press. Now what they can not do is remove your access to prevent of your exercise of free speech just as they can not take away a printing press that you own.

Providing access does not equal preventing the denial of access. You're disagreeing with something the poster did not actually say, and in actuality are agreeing with them.

The previous poster was saying nobody can be forced to give you access to their printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter, not that you cannot access them if you come to a mutually acceptable arrangement with the owner of one or if you own one such device yourself.

Interesting should then the government give it to you? Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your are provided access to a printing press, radio transmitter, or TV transmitter.

Because people are waking up to the issues in Washington, more and more people are finally starting to get involved. The politicians don't like that, because it can cause bad press (negative reinforcement), challenges during elections (negative reinforcement), and other bad consequences.

Don't blame politicians for behaving that way - they don't have souls.