First Amendment

Just a quick note before I log off for today.
It seems as if no matter what you're doing in America, you can find a way to justify it with this handy little Amendment.
There was a guy who got out of a sexual harassment suit because he said it was protected by the Freedom of Speech.
People (like the "new Green Day", Kanye West, Eminem, practically 75% of modern Americans) say that they can bitch about the president and many other Republicans - whether the facts are true or false - and they're exercising the right.

Actually, I just wanted to point out that the only people who say they're exercising the right are the ones saying that their political slander is protected. No it isn't. That is the only thing that isn't protected.

The right to Free Speech is being perverted for modern America. It now only protects the pleasing things. You are no longer aloud to say, "I'm Christian therefore I oppose the homosexual lifestyle" in school anymore. You aren't aloud to say, "I don't think women should be aloud in the military". We have silenced what we don't want to hear and have avoided temporary conflict without actually solving the inevitable.

It turn, we have used political slander, the most popular form of "I'm using my rights", into something legal. People bash Bush, Christians, and Republicans (and in the next five years we'll be bashing Democrats because we're assholes like that) with false accusations and spread the bullshit as if it isn't the first thing the U.S. Constitution wouldn't allow.

Well, for all those saying the Constitution is out of date are just too stubborn to see that it's the perversion we've placed on it that is what's wrong. The Constitution would be an amazing document if we followed it.

Discuss (bash me, we all know what, "discuss" means from a non-liberal view point.

Freedom of speech was also put as a 'human right' by the United Nations. If you look at it from an international stand point, most people are denied that right, but in America it is abused. But it's not that it's directly opposing the discussion of everything you don't want to hear, it's just creating more debate about topics which are considered already addressed by the government when there are still a few people out there who, as you say, think that women shouldn't be allowed in the army, and oppose gay marriage. It's a social barrier, protecting modernistic views of what is now acceptable to think of different races and cultures.

Actually the discussion came up in my penal law class one day. "following the constitution". Are we to follow the exact letter of it OR do we follow the spirit of it (interpret it).

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.

Another interesting misconception of this issue is that American's feel that the Constitution follows them when they leave the USA, but in fact it doesn't. When you go to another country you must follow their rules. But I digress with that comment

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.

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...

Well, living in a different country, I have to admit I'm not too hot on my knowledge of the US constitution...
Am I correct in thinking this is 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. '

If so, it's vague enough to allow people to say pretty much what they want - as long as no action is taken

spill_no_sick:

You are no longer aloud to say, "I'm Christian therefore I oppose the homosexual lifestyle" in school anymore. You aren't aloud to say, "I don't think women should be aloud in the military". We have silenced what we don't want to hear and have avoided temporary conflict without actually solving the inevitable.

Are you actually not allowed to say those kind of things or is it just 'frowned upon' ?

My own opinion is that there's no such thing as complete freedom of speech in a democracy - they simply contradict.
For example the Civil Rights Bill outlaws discrimination in public accomodations - yet that obviously stops people from saying anything racist in, say, a resturant - hence restricting freedom of speech.

Basically, it's a whole load of loopholes...

rehabreject:

Are you actually not allowed to say those kind of things or is it just 'frowned upon' ?

You're allowed to say things like that, because you can't be arrested or charged with a crime for expressing an opinion.
It's just highly 'frowned upon' and you'll probably get bashed for saying something like that.

The First Amendment aggrivates me more than... possibly any other political issue. Well, I do love the First Amendment, more the way idiotic people choose to misuse it is what bothers me. In political debates, slander of any form is ridiculous. If you have to resort to mechanisms such as that to express yourself, you've already damaged your own arguement more than I could ever have hoped to. Same for those who resort to insults while debating. I believe you have every right to say what you wish, until it directly effects someone elses rights. Like Nick said, there is so much controversy over sexualtiy and Christianity right now, basically nothing is being done. If you speak out one way, you're "violating" someones rights, and if you feel a different way, you are "violating" someone elses. On issues such as that there is almost this cold silence being placed over people because no one wants to talk about it, and its silly. They are acting as if those who do say "I oppose homosexuality" have actually said something far more abusive, and it's just foolish.

The amendment has been manipulated to say whatever the reader wishes it to say. I seriously doubt rewritting it will solve anything, whats written on a piece of paper means next to nothing to most people. What causes people to change and respect rules and laws is enforcement. It's considered abusive now for people to express religius believes, but it's perfectly ok for schools to censor southern heritage. No lines or borders are in place for this. The first amendment is now more moldable than playdough, you can bend it and twist it into about anything. Freedom of speech is just almost now like something that no one thinks about anymore. "Oh, we have it, no big deal" Yeah, we have it... in some places.. not in others, and that IS a big deal. How can we ever accomplish anything if no one can speak how they feel? Say goodbye to social progression and hello to the decline of expression...

Vanity:

rehabreject:

Are you actually not allowed to say those kind of things or is it just 'frowned upon' ?

You're allowed to say things like that, because you can't be arrested or charged with a crime for expressing an opinion.
It's just highly 'frowned upon' and you'll probably get bashed for saying something like that.

no, I literally mean they passed two bills on it
www.whas.com I think is where I saw the story
is was something about bullying, but it just goes to show that avoiding problems, scapegoating, and destroying the fabric of our Constitution is more important than responsibility and taking on problems like bullying
which pisses me off beyond belief as well

I think we have every right to expression our opinions vocally.
Yes, that means I can say "I think Bush sucks and ought to be impeached".
It also means that I can't actually press charges against homophobic and races pieces of shit although I'd like to.
There are two sides to this and each side hates what the other says.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to say it.
I like the First Amendment.
I plan to use it.

druscilla_nesser:

I think we have every right to expression our opinions vocally.
Yes, that means I can say "I think Bush sucks and ought to be impeached".
It also means that I can't actually press charges against homophobic and races pieces of shit although I'd like to.
There are two sides to this and each side hates what the other says.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to say it.
I like the First Amendment.
I plan to use it.

What gives you the right to insult someone else? Absolutely nothing. Slander is insulting. There is a big difference between expressing views and making crude, hateful comments.And really, what does saying "I think he sucks" accomplish? Nothing, obviously thats a very mild example of a political insult, but slander isn't protected by the 1st amendment. And yes, you can press charges against homophobic discrimination when it becomes assult and harassment, same for sexist behavior. However someone saying they disagree with gay marriage or something like that is no where near harassment and they have commited no crime.

Kurtni:

druscilla_nesser:

I think we have every right to expression our opinions vocally.
Yes, that means I can say "I think Bush sucks and ought to be impeached".
It also means that I can't actually press charges against homophobic and races pieces of shit although I'd like to.
There are two sides to this and each side hates what the other says.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to say it.
I like the First Amendment.
I plan to use it.

What gives you the right to insult someone else? Absolutely nothing. Slander is insulting. There is a big difference between expressing views and making crude, hateful comments.And really, what does saying "I think he sucks" accomplish? Nothing, obviously thats a very mild example of a political insult, but slander isn't protected by the 1st amendment. And yes, you can press charges against homophobic discrimination when it becomes assult and harassment, same for sexist behavior. However someone saying they disagree with gay marriage or something like that is no where near harassment and they have commited no crime.

Saying I think he sucks accomplishes the fact that I've stated my opinion.
I don't expect it to accomplish much.

And slander and insults and different things.
Slander is a false statement, or the spreading of a rumor that could be harmful. Like if I said so-and-so beat their kids and I know they don't, that's slander.
It's completely different from an insult.
Insults [that don't fall under the hate crime law] aren't illegal, slander is.

druscilla_nesser:

Saying I think he sucks accomplishes the fact that I've stated my opinion.
I don't expect it to accomplish much.

And slander and insults and different things.
Slander is a false statement, or the spreading of a rumor that could be harmful. Like if I said so-and-so beat their kids and I know they don't, that's slander.
It's completely different from an insult.
Insults [that don't fall under the hate crime law] aren't illegal, slander is.

I didn't mean it like they were the same thing, I meant slander is an insulting thing to do(hence the "Slander is insulting" ) and in another post I said anyone who has to resort to insults during expressing an opinion has already degraded their argument more than I ever could hope to. I should have been more clear.
And the First Amendment doesn't protect abusive insults either. As the ninth amendment says ""The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Basically meaning that someones right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness overules my freedom of speech and the first amendment does not protect me interfering with that. You can't post vulgar or obscene material about someone, and then use the first amendment as a way to justify it.

The First Amendment may allow for slander, but it also allows for people to question those in power.

Personally, I'd rather live with a little slander than lose free speech entirely.

WeFoundTheDuck:

The First Amendment may allow for slander, but it also allows for people to question those in power.

Personally, I'd rather live with a little slander than lose free speech entirely.

we aren't losing free speech, it's being perverted
now slander is allowed and the whole reason it was started is not

spill_no_sick:

WeFoundTheDuck:

The First Amendment may allow for slander, but it also allows for people to question those in power.

Personally, I'd rather live with a little slander than lose free speech entirely.

we aren't losing free speech, it's being perverted
now slander is allowed and the whole reason it was started is not

But the second you start to separate what is free speach from what isn't, you open the door for the removal of free speech in its entirety.

I understand what you mean, but I really think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether or not that opinion is percieved as slander or not is another matter entirely.

WeFoundTheDuck:

spill_no_sick:

WeFoundTheDuck:

The First Amendment may allow for slander, but it also allows for people to question those in power.

Personally, I'd rather live with a little slander than lose free speech entirely.

we aren't losing free speech, it's being perverted
now slander is allowed and the whole reason it was started is not

But the second you start to separate what is free speach from what isn't, you open the door for the removal of free speech in its entirety.

I understand what you mean, but I really think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether or not that opinion is percieved as slander or not is another matter entirely.

there was one distinction made when it was created
it stands for everything except slander
now we aren't ending it, and then starting a new one
we are just changing the meaning
most don't understand how dangerous it is to be this convinient

this is what allowed Chrisitians to start the Holy Wars and kill Muslims because they perverted God's law to what they wanted
this is what allowed Catholics to kill all nonCatholics by perverted God's law to what they wanted
this is what allowed Chrisitians to be racist by perverting God's law into what they wanted

when the Constitution was started they figured it was best to keep any rules of a religion out of it
so they made a nearly flawless document....and now it's being perverted to what we want
it's just the beginning to something really bad

spill_no_sick:

there was one distinction made when it was created
it stands for everything except slander
now we aren't ending it, and then starting a new one
we are just changing the meaning
most don't understand how dangerous it is to be this convinient

this is what allowed Chrisitians to start the Holy Wars and kill Muslims because they perverted God's law to what they wanted
this is what allowed Catholics to kill all nonCatholics by perverted God's law to what they wanted
this is what allowed Chrisitians to be racist by perverting God's law into what they wanted

when the Constitution was started they figured it was best to keep any rules of a religion out of it
so they made a nearly flawless document....and now it's being perverted to what we want
it's just the beginning to something really bad

I don't think any of that has to do with the First Amendment though, to be honest.

People will always do that, because you can interpret religious rules anyway you please. People use god as their excuse for doing bad things, and changing the consitution won't change that.

WeFoundTheDuck:

spill_no_sick:

there was one distinction made when it was created
it stands for everything except slander
now we aren't ending it, and then starting a new one
we are just changing the meaning
most don't understand how dangerous it is to be this convinient

this is what allowed Chrisitians to start the Holy Wars and kill Muslims because they perverted God's law to what they wanted
this is what allowed Catholics to kill all nonCatholics by perverted God's law to what they wanted
this is what allowed Chrisitians to be racist by perverting God's law into what they wanted

when the Constitution was started they figured it was best to keep any rules of a religion out of it
so they made a nearly flawless document....and now it's being perverted to what we want
it's just the beginning to something really bad

I don't think any of that has to do with the First Amendment though, to be honest.

People will always do that, because you can interpret religious rules anyway you please. People use god as their excuse for doing bad things, and changing the consitution won't change that.

well yeah, war on terror doesn't stop all terrorists but it sure as hell stopped a lot of them

spill_no_sick:

WeFoundTheDuck:

spill_no_sick:

there was one distinction made when it was created
it stands for everything except slander
now we aren't ending it, and then starting a new one
we are just changing the meaning
most don't understand how dangerous it is to be this convinient

this is what allowed Chrisitians to start the Holy Wars and kill Muslims because they perverted God's law to what they wanted
this is what allowed Catholics to kill all nonCatholics by perverted God's law to what they wanted
this is what allowed Chrisitians to be racist by perverting God's law into what they wanted

when the Constitution was started they figured it was best to keep any rules of a religion out of it
so they made a nearly flawless document....and now it's being perverted to what we want
it's just the beginning to something really bad

I don't think any of that has to do with the First Amendment though, to be honest.

People will always do that, because you can interpret religious rules anyway you please. People use god as their excuse for doing bad things, and changing the consitution won't change that.

well yeah, war on terror doesn't stop all terrorists but it sure as hell stopped a lot of them

Not the American ones.

druscilla_nesser:

spill_no_sick:

well yeah, war on terror doesn't stop all terrorists but it sure as hell stopped a lot of them

Not the American ones.

Exactly.

And people should really be able to say what they want. Slander is punishable by law, if it can be proved. So I don't really see the harm in allowing people to state opinions freely.

WeFoundTheDuck:

druscilla_nesser:

spill_no_sick:

well yeah, war on terror doesn't stop all terrorists but it sure as hell stopped a lot of them

Not the American ones.

Exactly.

And people should really be able to say what they want. Slander is punishable by law, if it can be proved. So I don't really see the harm in allowing people to state opinions freely.

I actually saw that comming
"Americans are terrorists for being in wars and having money"
look, we sought out to take out terrorist group
the only American terrorist groups I can think of are the Trench Coat Mafia (dead), KKK and groups of the sort (who are punished if they act upon their beliefs), and homophobes (who are delt with)
people should be able to say what they want, but they should realize that slander is not protected
and let's put this into a scenario that doesn't involve slander against Bush (because you all support that)

how about The Truth counting everyone smoker who dies of a heart or respitory related illness as a "death caused by tobacco"
how fair is that?
people will call it "false advertising" but it's slander
just like everyone says, "I can do this because of the first ammendment!"
it's being perverted and I seem to be the only one (and George Washington) to believe it will have an attrocious outcome