First Amendment

dirtyhippie:

Slander isn't criminal behavior unless it can be proven that special damage was done to the person in question. So it's incredibly broad.

Basically, the first amendment goes by the honor system. You can say whatever shit you want to, and it should be accurate to the best of your knowledge. Unfortunately, people are lazy and abuse this right. It's definitely a right, but one that people use constantly without thinking...

Sam agreeing with the original draft of the Constitution
hate to say it, but I think you're going conservative

Good book on this topic: Current Controversies: Free Speech

I just like that whole series of books because they don't present one side of an opinion. Like Im reading that one as we speak, I just started it. Chapter one is called "Should Free Speech Be Limited?", a question. Then it's broken into two mini-chapters the first one being "Free Speech should be limited" and the second is "Free Speech Should Not be Limited". Even if you've already formed an opinion on the subject, it can show you both sides of an argument. It's a book composed of multiple articles by different authors on Free Speech. This whole series of books pretty much own the world. Our city library has the whole series, but their librarian smells weird and scares me. I read all the ones on drugs and alcohol there but after multiple suggestions from me, myself, and I our school librarian ordered them. And she doesn't smell weird.

So after I finish it I'll probably come back in here and make a big long post with multiple references to that book.

Banach95:

An interesting discussion came from that simple question. Many felt that since it was written in the late 1700's that we must follow the spirit of it since our forefathers had no clue about the information highway, media etc. While others felt that we needed to follow the exactly to the last letter.

Actually the Founding Father WERE quite aware that there would be technological advances.

Banach95:

back to the topic at hand... it seems every so often rumors fly about 'updating' the constitution. Folks don't realize that we do that with every court case that goes to the Supreme Court.

Most incorrect. The Constitution only allows for amending and that requires super majorities in both houses of Congress.

Banach95:

As to my own thoughts... I'm on the fence. I enjoy the right to free speech but also am smart enough to know what it covers. Like you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. Free Speech doesn't give you that right...

Actually you're wrong. The right to yell "Fire" in a theater remains a right. It does not however shield you from prosecution as a result of the others in the theater that are put at risk by the act.
However, the right to yell 'FIRE' remains.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I doubt these people from 5 years ago are going to be seeing your counterpoints.

WeaselClubber:

Actually the Founding Father WERE quite aware that there would be technological advances.

Most incorrect. The Constitution only allows for amending and that requires super majorities in both houses of Congress.

And because of that, they'd be utterly appalled at the fact that we're still using such an outdated and vague document to govern ourselves. Many of the founding fathers disliked it when they were still alive

And as for your second comment, the physical text of the constitution may not change, but the Supreme Court changes the meaning all the time.

For one thing, the very principle of judicial review is not a constitutionally sanctioned power. It wasn't until Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court declared a law "unconstitutional," and as such created judicial review, and forever shaped how the constitution was going to be used throughout US history.

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was a perfectly legal and protected act based on the 14th amendment, which allowed the southern states to introduce Jim Crow laws. About 50 years later, the Supreme Court overruled their decision in Brown v. The Board of Education, which made the "separate but equal" doctrine defunct, based on the very same 14th amendment. The physical text didn't change, but that's a meaningless detail, because the Supreme Court might as well have rewritten the whole thing based on the implications of that decision.

In Pace v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that it was acceptable to criminalize interracial relationships. They reaffirmed the decision in Hover v. The State of Missouri. That decision, and thus that meaning of the constitution, was overruled in Loving v. Virginia, based on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

In Schenck v. United States, it was ruled that speaking out against the draft was unconstitutional and not protected by free speech, and Schenck was charged with espionage. In Whitney cv. California, a person was convicted for being a communist, which wasn't protected by the first amendment. Years later, that decision was reversed with Brandenburg v. Ohio (which involved a KKK leader advocating white supremacy), which greatly increased the definition of the first amendment.

To say the constitution was not changed by those decision, and many others, is most incorrect.

Evgeni Malkin:

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I doubt these people from 5 years ago are going to be seeing your counterpoints.

: I've GOT this

Kurtni:

Evgeni Malkin:

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I doubt these people from 5 years ago are going to be seeing your counterpoints.

: I've GOT this

I hate being wrong.