"Congress shall make no law," it begins, and goes on to limit restrictions on the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom to assembly peacably and to seek redress of grievances.
Yet, the courts have allowed the government to pass and enforce some laws restricting obscenity, libel, etc.
Regarding those exceptions, the 1st amendment does not grant you the right to expose children (either physically or by message), hurt people by lying about them or yes, fomenting an insurrection. Those aren't exemptions, they're necessary restrictions on the rights of one to protect the many.
What we really need is a new Amendment: "Don't be a fucking dick!"
nickname for Richards who shag.
This dick is fucked.
No it isn't, it's just resting.
Resting my arse, it's dead, deceased, shuttled off its mortal coil and joined the choir infernal.
No, it's just shagged out after a hard day.
It's day has only been hard because it's got rigour mortice. And stop grinning, you're embarrassing the bucktoothed moron.
Beautiful plumage. Very rich colours.
Yes. And that's another thing, you said this dick was whiteβ¦
It is..!!!
Only because you painted it..!! Besides, the oil paint is melting the condom you stuffed with lard to make it look biggerβ¦
The 1st Amendment doesn't allow you to yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater because that can cause harm to others. Those people need to be protected. Same with libel/slander. Why should someone be able to ruin someone with lies? The person being libeled has rights.
Obscenity? That's bullshit. Did you know that D.H. Lawrence was considered a pornographer at the time of his death? Today he's considered one of the top authors of the 20th Century.
The 1st Amendment doesn't allow you to yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater because that can cause harm to others. Those people need to be protected. Same with libel/slander. Why should someone be able to ruin someone with lies? The person being libeled has rights.
Obscenity? That's bullshit. Did you know that D.H. Lawrence was considered a pornographer at the time of his death? Today he's considered one of the top authors of the 20th Century.
Nope.
There are no valid examples of what is or is not covered. The wording is simple.
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.
Everything else is interpretation, slanted in favour of those doing the interpretation.
It makes no mention of shouting anything in a theatre, nor does it mention pornography. It simply states those things that NO law shall be made respecting.
The same applies to a certain commandment that states "Thou shall not kill"
It does not say, unless the government tells you too, or in self defence etc etc. Those are interpretations, they are NOT part of the commandment.
The problem with interpretations is that they can twist any law to mean just about anything and thus be used to control the very people those laws were supposed to protect.
Shouting FIRE in a theatre has nothing to do with the first amendment and everything to do with being a fuckwit.
The same applies to a certain commandment that states "Thou shall not kill"
I'm told by a Jewish friend that in "the scripture" the wording is "thou shall not murder" - which opens it up to legalisms.
The same applies to a certain commandment that states "Thou shall not kill"
It's actually 'Do not murder'.
My favorite version of it is essentially the one Michael Loucks posted: "Thou shalt do no murder."
The Old Testament is chock full of cases where people kill and God is fine with it. Wars, stonings, and on and on. Those are 'killings', but they are not 'murder', because they're justified.
Depends on which version you read
Wrong. The ten commandments are Old Testament, the Hebrew version is to use. Bad translations in Christian times do not change God's word.
HM.
Depends on which version you read
In this case, the only one that matters.
Hebrew.
The phrase was written "ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ", which is in short more correctly translated as "murder with premeditation".
There are hundreds of translations into various forms by many Christian faiths. But like in so much of the Old Testament, you really need to look into it in the original Hebrew to fully understand it.
But like in so much of the Old Testament, you really need to look into it in the original Hebrew to fully understand it.
Including those parts that are not included? Or just those written closest to the time the events occurred? If you insist on only one source you need to define that source and why certain parts are included or excluded.
I am talking on the the Torah here. Not the various books of Apocrypha that various religions choose to incorporate or not incorporate. And there are even more works dating back thousands of years by scholars and priests who interpreted the laws even more so, but are not included in either the Torah or Bible at all.
In many ways, the inclusion of the "Old Testament" into the Christian Bible was to try and gain converts, as well as to familiarize those who converted from other religions the "back story" than anything else.
The "Book of Jubilees" is a good example of this. Only accepted as "Canonical" by the Ethiopian Christians and Jews, no other religion considers it as such. And there are many other examples, where one religion accepts it, yet another one does not.
But in this case (as any other relating to the Torah), true reflection can only come by looking at the original language. Not third and forth hand interpretations by say early 17th century English theologians, who also added in words and phrases that were never used in the original, but were "popular" at that time.
I am talking on the the Torah here.
Since that is what you stated. So was I. There are several early versions. Scholars are unable to agree who wrote it or who edited it, opinions are split as to why the same events are described in different parts and why those descriptions so often offer opposing versions of the same event.
There is no point demanding that only one document is "true" when that document is littered with diametrically opposed statements.
Council of Nicaea, and Trent made hash out of what was canon or not. For the former, Constantine wasn't helping either. A whole lot of people were put to death over disagreeing with the findings of the Council of Nicaea.
The Torah was not the be all end all definition of what was apocryphal or not, not even close.
Neither the Council at Nicaea, nor Constantine determined the Canon - at least there is no evidence that happened. There is considerable evidence that the the biblical canon had been established decades earlier.
People weren't "put to death" for supporting Arianism. Arians and the orthodox fought and people on both sides died in those conflicts, but that's not the same thing.
Shouting FIRE in a theatre has nothing to do with the first amendment and everything to do with being a fuckwit.
I agree, we need a few (but not too many) anti-fuckwit amendments, akin to my previous 'Don't be a dick!' admonition.
But, as far as codifying them into law, laws are, by definitions, crafted to dickweed political hacks, who are trying to make themselves seem more importing to fucking with other people's lives. That's why I've always felt that governments should be run by lottery, where the chief executive is chose completely at random to lead the entire country for a single term, at the end of which they are summarily executed for all the as-yet undiscovered crimes they committed while it office!
That would certainly slow the constant parade a jack-assed politicians trying to undermine one another!
I agree, we need a few (but not too many) anti-fuckwit amendments
Why would anyone think that making more laws, amendments, whatever would actually help or solve anything??
The simple fact is that there are already far too many laws in existence. The rational answer is to strike around 75% of those existing laws and enforce the remaining 25% properly, fairly and equally to everyone.
Of course that will never happen, so excuse me for laughing when anyone mentions "the land of the free" applied to the country with more prison inmates per capita that any other country in the world.
You can't improve the system by promising to clear the swamp only to realise that to do so you have to wade into the deep end and convince the alligators to help you do it.
A much better way is to join the PTA the school board and anywhere else that allows you to ensure the next generation are taught to think for themselves, to question and to understand that when Franklin said, " A republic. if you can keep it." He was talking to every successive generation. You have failed. They need to understand that it's their turn next and that they need the education to give them the tools to succeed.
A much better way is to join the PTA the school board and anywhere else that allows you to ensure the next generation are taught to think for themselves, to question and to understand that when Franklin said, " A republic. if you can keep it."
Except, we've been doing just that for well over 200 years, and it hasn't made a difference yet. I agree with you, you can't change a system by sustaining it, as you're only sustaining the abuse and preventing any serious rejuvenation of the system.
Except, we've been doing just that for well over 200 years,
If that were true then the education system wouldn't be as it is now. Simply getting more seats filled in more classrooms and lecture halls isn't a measure of success. What really matters is what is taught. Spoon feeding dogma isn't education. Teaching critical thinking is.
Spoon feeding dogma isn't education. Teaching critical thinking is.
Sadly, that one line describes the current state of the US education system.
What really matters is what is taught. Spoon feeding dogma isn't education. Teaching critical thinking is.
Critical thinking (and the Socratic method) is antithetic to rote learning, and rote learning is of critical importance to certain professions eg medicine, law.
If you prioritise critical thinking, you'll reduce the capabilities of doctors and lawyers.
AJ
If you prioritise critical thinking, you'll reduce the capabilities of doctors and lawyers.
Who suggested that? Certainly nothing in the two short sentences I wrote.
Just in case you missed the point rather than just being obtuse. The current US education system isn't worthy of that description. There is nothing educated or educational about it. Of course there are exceptions and doubtless somebody will gleefully point them out. But taken as a whole the current system glorifies the mundane and eradicates excellence.
Teach kids that they are all winners isn't education, heck it isn't even consistent. Football games have winners and losers, schools and colleges have valedictorians. An education system worthy of the name does not teach dogma, it teaches kids how to learn, how to question and think for themselves. Such a system will produce better doctors who use the necessary rote learning to better care for their patients. Not to mention producing more informed future votersβ¦
Oh wait. Who wants better informed voters who will call bullshit on pork barrel political policy? Hmm. Might as well give it up guys, you're all screwed. Big government won.
Might as well give it up guys, you're all screwed. Big government won.
And that's why we have the Second Amendment ... :) (At least in this country.)
And that's why we have the Second Amendment
Bullshit.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's what it states. The fun starts when the interpretations begin.
My take is simple. At that time is was thought that the only way to keep a State free was to have a militia ready to defend it. A militia at that time wasn't subject to regular training. In order to ensure that if called upon, the militia was capable of hitting what it aimed at, the members needed practice and inn case of a surprise attack, being armed the at home or work made sense. Period.
When it was written, the constitution was complete in and of itself and was the blueprint for the Federal Government and how it would interact with the States.
Various States refused to sign it as was, so the bill of rights was added to appease those States and get the constitution ratified.
Some people believe the 2nd amendment is the final check and balance against an oppressive Legislature or Federal Government. It is a nice theory that that fails in practise.
Every American that joins a service, is appointed, etc swears and oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
So. If the 'people' rise up against the Legislature or federal government they are 'enemies'. Why? Because if their cause was just and the Legislature or federal government was acting against the constitution, then the 'people' would be in a queue behind everyone who had sworn the oath to protect the constitution.
Legislature and Federal government have acted and continue to act against the constitution on a daily basis. How many oath takers stand against them?
Simple example;
1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
During the 1950s, Eisenhower revolutionized the role of religion in American political culture, inventing new traditions from inaugural prayers to the National Prayer Breakfast. Meanwhile, Congress added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and made "In God We Trust" the country's first official motto.
Nowadays all the second amendment does is guarantee arms manufacturers profits. It certainly does nothing to protect the people from the government.
And in case you are wondering, I'm neither anti-gun nor anti-American, I AM anti-bullshit.
spoon fed dogma and bumper stickers won't change anything. A decent education system would. (Or another revolution, if you can accept the death toll and the result if you lose.)
When it was written, the constitution was complete in and of itself and was the blueprint for the Federal Government and how it would interact with the States.
That in and of itself is a bullshit statement. As it was written, we would be the United State of America, not the United States of America.
Also, at the time the Constitution was written and as it was intended, the general citizenry of the nation WERE the militia.
The reason we have not seen much violence - and make no mistake, there has been violence against the Federal Government in our past (and I'm not talking about January 6th, I'm talking prior to that) is because we've seen what price must be paid. When the 'elected' President of the United States says that your guns won't be much use against F-15's and nukes - that tells you he's no longer planning on being President, he's planning on becoming dictator. (Or someone filling out his teleprompters that he can't even read is making him appear that way.)
As it was written, we would be the United State of America, not the United States of America.
If that were true, it would;'t have to have been ratified by the thirteen States. (Plural)
When the 'elected' President of the United States says that your guns won't be much use against F-15's and nukes - that tells you he's no longer planning on being President, he's planning on becoming dictator.
Or, alternately, it tells you that he's capable of common sense and seeing the utterly obvious.
People have said exactly the same thing for my entire lifetime. It's hardly new or novel, and no one who's said it was espousing any idea of running the nation dictatorially via the military.
It's really an utterly prosaic statement, unworthy of more than a nod and a 'duh'. It no more implies that the President is planning on ruling by force than him saying 'we need air to breathe' implies that he's planning on sucking up all the air and giving it out to only his supporters.
And that's why we have the Second Amendment ... :)
Of course, a central component of critical thinking is the ability to NOT shoot yourself, your significant other or you kids in the foot/face and/or chest at close range! Gun control isn't about limiting freedoms, it's the same as keeping spears out of the hands of those with brain damage--protecting idiots from themselves! We've got better ways of protecting others from idiots, such as Covid-19, otherwise known as the Darwin awards!
Gun control isn't about limiting freedoms
That's exactly what it is. It's also a very illogical argument. I've never seen or heard of a firearm getting up and walking out to the street to shoot someone. It's an inanimate object with no will or intelligence of its own. Politicians like to wordsmith their argument to make it sound like it's all the firearms fault, and not the criminal that picked it up and used it in the commission of a crime.
By the logic applied to firearms, cars, hammers, nailguns, trucks, etc, should all be banned because they have killed people. Many times during the commission of a crime.
It's an inanimate object with no will or intelligence of its own.
I read an article that quoted an ex-police captain (Detroit) who said something like, "Guns aren't the problem. Crime is the problem." He then went on to say Biden's ban on assault rifles is useless for fighting crime since most crimes and killings are done with handguns. He's talking crime, not the mass shootings that we see on the media. Not that it matters, but he's black.
San Jose just passed a law to tax gun owners. Their reasoning is to pay for the cost of police being called to scenes where guns were used. I wonder why they don't tax car owners to pay for the cost of police going to accident sites.
By the logic applied to firearms, cars, hammers, nailguns, trucks, etc, should all be banned because they have killed people. Many times during the commission of a crime.
Don't give them ideas. The UK has already enacted knife control laws.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control/
how to question and think for themselves
I maintain that people who question and think for themselves would make very different doctors and lawyers to what we have now.
Doctors would be far better diagnosticians, certainly, but their learning schedule is currently overflowing so much more would have to give, and that would be the breadth of their knowledge about medical matters.
AJ
I maintain that people who question and think for themselves would make very different doctors and lawyers to what we have now.
Doctors would be far better diagnosticians, certainly, but their learning schedule is currently overflowing so much more would have to give, and that would be the breadth of their knowledge about medical matters.
I would agree if doctors started their education at medical school whilst everyone else started as usual.
Teaching kids how to learn, how to question and how to think means that potential doctors know that BEFORE entering medical school.
Teaching kids how to learn, how to question and how to think means that potential doctors know that BEFORE entering medical school.
Getting to medical is extremely competitive. That means getting top exam grades. And the students who get the best exam grades are those who can most accurately regurgitate what they're taught from the syllabus.
AJ
As awnlee points out, the teaching focus of grade and middle school is rote memorization (i.e. 'We teach you, you remember it verbatim'). High school is little better, at least offering alternatives, but it still doesn't go much beyond memorizing a few key principals/equations you'll never use again, but no school's going to force 'creative thinking' on the lunkheads who haven't yet matured significantly.
And the problem with the U.S. voters is that the 'educational elite' has always been an exceptionally small percentage of the total population. In short, the founders never really wanted universal suffrage, not because they had it in for blacks and Hispanics, but because they thought the 'average man' was either uninterested in or incapable of actual creative thought and/or real analysis.
but because they thought the 'average man' was either uninterested in or incapable of actual creative thought and/or real analysis.
That's why they're the 'average man'. Their anthem is 'Hey, y'all, watch this', or 'Hold my beer', shortly thereafter followed by a trip to the ER or the morgue.
That's why they're the 'average man'. Their anthem is 'Hey, y'all, watch this', or 'Hold my beer', shortly thereafter followed by a trip to the ER or the morgue.
Nonsense.
If what you state were true then more than half of the entire US population would in and out of the ER more frequently than Michael Crichton.
And the problem with the U.S. voters is that the 'educational elite' has always been an exceptionally small percentage of the total population.
Are you calling those who go to expensive schools and Ivy League colleges "the elite"?
If so, then how come those systems produce their share of fucktards?
Also, your inference is that the elite can benefit from better education at younger ages, in which case age isn't of itself a barrier.
A better explanation is the difference between what should be taught up to high school graduation and what is actually taught these days.
The argument that rote learning fails when what is taught is dogma and the exams require that dogma regurgitated.
Scrap the dogma and rewrite the exams is a far better solution.
If so, then how come those systems produce more than their share of fucktards?
Fixed it for you.
I have no idea how many people here have kids that are high school age, or recently were, but I do. I've yet to see much evidence of the theory that 'all we do is teach rote memorization' or 'there's no critical thinking taught' or 'the schools are just teaching dogma' or anything of the sort.
My kids went to perfectly ordinary suburban schools. Decent, but teaching the state-mandated curricula, with teachers that have the same teaching credentials as everyone else, etc.
None of them believe that they're 'all winners', nor did the schools 'eradicate excellence'. Especially considering that I went to an extremely good high school back in the day, I'm really rather amazed at how much excellence there was now at schools that don't rank as highly as mine did then.
Now, I can accept the argument that my kids grew up in an unusual household (both parents with Masters degrees, highly educated friends, etc). However, they both associated with all sorts of people, including quite poor people from broken homes.
I don't see any less 'critical thinking' or any more acceptance of whatever the dogma of the day is supposed to be than I did in the 1980s. I saw quite a lot of very open-ended assignments that required critical thinking (or a lot of Googling, but plagiarism has been a thing since long before Google).
I could wish that a lot of things in the schools were better (the Texas Textbook Commission is an utter joke and a blight upon the nation and common sense, and so is what passes for sex ed - but both of those were true in the 1980s too).
One thing that concerns me is the backlash we're seeing out of part of the population against teaching anything that challenges 'the way it's always been'. Just about two weeks ago we made Juneteenth a holiday. At the same time, the legislature was busy ensuring that teachers would have a great deal of difficulty teaching WHY it's a holiday. To me, that's a much bigger problem than anything I've seen out of the schools as my kids and their friends made their way through the system.
There are legitimate concerns about education in America, don't get me wrong. But I've seen very little that indicates we're in the dogmatic egalitarian nightmare that one segment of our society seems hell-bent on asserting is happening.
Responding to myself: The huge exception here is 'high stakes testing'. I don't mean the SAT or ACT by that, I mean the idiotic tests that are given to decide who advances and doesn't and who graduates and doesn't. Far, far too much time is wasted teaching to the test for those.
High stakes testing was supposed to save us from social promotion, teachers grading 'easy', etc. What it's actually done is force a ton of time to be wasted on stupid things that don't matter, and there are enough exceptions and loopholes that kids are socially promoted anywhere.
If there's one thing that would meaningfully improve high school education, at least where I live, it's blowing up the entire high stakes testing boondoggle. We spend billions developing, teaching, and administering tests that are pretty much useless and undermine learning.
There are legitimate concerns about education in America, don't get me wrong. But I've seen very little that indicates we're in the dogmatic egalitarian nightmare that one segment of our society seems hell-bent on asserting is happening.
I don't think it is "one segment" as that infers a group with a shared agenda, nor is that view confined to Americans.
I don't doubt you or your families experience with the US education system. I do question wether it is a fair indication of the system as a whole, nationwide.
I have a son that is 16, and after two years of public school Jr high, we pulled him out of that indoctrination to home school. He has since flourished educationally. His mother has architectural and electrical engineering degrees, and I have materials and mechanical engineering degrees. None of those so called teachers can cover STEM better than us. Especially his mother who is also a polyglot.
In the last parent teacher conference the moron/teacher started to preach the need to teach equity and inherent racism of the country to our son. She was apparently tone deaf and blind. My wife is a filipina immigrant and I'm a half native American Cherokee born to a Jewish German immigrant.
We don't need that bitch to teach us or our son anything about racism nor equality. My mother was hunted by the nazis, and my father was hunted by the clan. My parents as a pair were hunted and harassed by the clan together. Those morons can go practice self fornication with a cork screw imo.
The American School London is allegedly teaching its white pupils that they're benefiting from racism and white privilege. And it racially segregates its after-school activities.
The 'cure' seems to be far worse than any disease.
AJ
teaching its white pupils that they're benefiting from racism and white privilege...racially segregates its after-school activities.
Which is racist itself.
@awnlee jawking
teaching its white pupils that they're benefiting from racism and white privilege...racially segregates its after-school activities.
Which is racist itself.
Only whites can be racist, because racism is about power and oppression, not hate.
Only whites can be racist, because racism is about power and oppression, not hate.
Which is bullshit. There is no lack of people who judge others by their race, which is actually racism. If it is judged by the measure of power and oppression, especially the power angle, every CEO and government official around the world would be racist. Even the African decent power players.
Which is bullshit.
Agreed, but you will find plenty of vocal anti-racism activists who will openly spout the "only whites can be racist" line.
Agreed, but you will find plenty of vocal anti-racism activists who will openly spout the "only whites can be racist" line.
True. However they are idiots. Once that camel gets its nose in the tent, it won't stop. "It's just the Jews," Goebbels and Hitler told the German people. After which many other groups (any that opposed the third reich) were rounded up into concentration camps.
Those idiots apparently have never read history.
Agreed, but you will find plenty of vocal anti-racism activists who will openly spout the "only whites can be racist" line.
Isn't that a central tenet of Critical Race Theory - along with all whites enjoying the benefit of white privilege?
AJ
Isn't that a central tenet of Critical Race Theory
Probably, but it predates CRT by quite a bit.
"along with all whites enjoying the benefit of white privilege?"
Yeah, as if dirt poor "trailer trash" whites have any kind of privilege.
If you prioritise critical thinking, you'll reduce the capabilities of doctors and lawyers.
And how, exactly, is that a bad thing?
And how, exactly, is that a bad thing?
Speaking for the UK health system, the existing lack of knowledge of GPs is already a significant issue, and anything to make that worse would need strong justification.
For example, the symptoms and treatment of the menopause is optional training that most trainee GPs avoid. Consequently it takes an average of a year for GPs to diagnose the menopause correctly, and even then many GPs don't have a clue about treatments like hormone replacement therapy.
AJ
Teaching critical thinking is.
Typically, at least in the U.S., critical thinking begins in College, not high school. If students show promise, teachers will often lead them in the right direction, but it's never been the intent of the earlier grades. The whole training there is to teach them the basic skills needed to survive (i.e. language comprehension, logic, communication, VERY basic accounting, etc.), not anything they'd need beyond that limited scope.
Of course, what typically happens is that, having cut their apron strings, college kids tend to 'party hardy' and don't pay attendant when they do teach critical thinking skills, but that's the main reason why they don't teach them in high school.
The 1st Amendment doesn't allow you to yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater because that can cause harm to others.
Sure it does. There are no limitations on 'Congress shall make NO law' nor incorporation against the States by the 14th Amendment.
Falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre is a tort. It cannot be a crime or infraction, as the Constitution prohibits ANY restriction on speech.
The owner of the theatre would have a tort for lost income and damage, and patrons would have a tort for any injuries, including loss of their admission if the theatre didn't refund it.
Consider disclosing classified information. That's criminal law, not civil. I'm certain that the Founders didn't intend to include the freedom to convey secrets to our enemies under 'free speech' (indeed, that's also covered in the Constitution), notwithstanding that the amendment, as written, would preclude even that interference with 'free speech'.
I'm not convinced that it couldn't (nor shouldn't) be considered criminal mischief, really.
I'm certain that the Founders didn't intend to include the freedom to convey secrets to our enemies under 'free speech' (indeed, that's also covered in the Constitution), notwithstanding that the amendment, as written, would preclude even that interference with 'free speech'.
I have to disagree here. I seriously doubt that the authors of the first amendment contemplated the government having significant secrets.
Considering they used spies of their own in the Revolutionary War, I find it amazingly unlikely that they didn't contemplate someone else using spies against them, then or in the future.
Every right discussed in our constitution comes with grave responsibilities. Traditionally, the Supreme Court determines what those responsibilities are. The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been limited by the Court since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. That case provided judicial review, not only of individual cases, but of the law itself. The scope of that review determines not only what is allowed under the law, but also the limitations of what is allowed. The limits on free speech prohibit libel and slander. Freedom of religion doesn't extend to human sacrifices or use of prohibited drugs. None of the amendments is absolute, though individuals and organizations have tried to insist that they are ever since the Bill of Rights was ratified.
The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been limited by the Court
I believe it was not the Court that did the limiting, but the government. The Court permitted the government to do it.
The limits on free speech prohibit libel and slander.
Those are torts. The government may not pass laws which restrict content in speech. SCOTUS, in nearly every other case, rejects laws which are content-based.
Freedom of religion doesn't extend to human sacrifices or use of prohibited drugs.
Human sacrifice deprives another person of their rights. Drug use does not. There is nothing in the Constitution which permitted the US Government to restrict the use of peyote, for example.
SCOTUS may disagree, but they've been wrong so many times, I've lost count. Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson being two prime examples on which I believe everyone can agree.
Freedom of religion doesn't extend to human sacrifices or use of prohibited drugs.
Given that certain flavours of the church actively include the ceremonial drinking of the blood and eating of the body by the congregation. How big a step is it from symbolic cannibalism to human sacrifice?
Symbolic cannibalism is the realm of the church. Human sacrifice is the domain of the government.
Freedom of religion doesn't extend to human sacrifices or use of prohibited drugs.
Human sacrifice deprives another person of their rights.
An interesting point, and one that notably weakens the First Amendment.
There definitely exist religions for which human sacrifice is an element. The First states 'no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. A law against human sacrifice is a clear violation of the text of the amendment.
One line of analysis (which is problematic, but problematic because of its possible effect, not logically) is essentially your point: a law prohibiting depriving another person of their rights is not a law which 'targets' religion. It's of broad effect.
However, that obviously opens the door to all sorts of laws of general effect infringing the Constitution 'inadvertently'. That's generally not OK.
The First, though, does not say 'except when the free exercise of religion deprives someone of their rights'. In an absolutist reading, it's 'no law'. Period.
There's nothing in the Amendment itself allowing the government to ban human sacrifice when conducted as a required element in the free exercise of a religion. What allows them to do so comes from outside the Amendment, and forces the conclusion that the Amendment cannot be properly read in an absolutist manner.
Once there is even one exception, every exception becomes a discussion.
Every right discussed in our constitution comes with grave responsibilities. Traditionally, the Supreme Court determines what those responsibilities are. The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been limited by the Court since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. That case provided judicial review, not only of individual cases, but of the law itself. The scope of that review determines not only what is allowed under the law, but also the limitations of what is allowed. The limits on free speech prohibit libel and slander. Freedom of religion doesn't extend to human sacrifices or use of prohibited drugs. None of the amendments is absolute, though individuals and organizations have tried to insist that they are ever since the Bill of Rights was ratified.
I have long thought they should have called it the "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities". Yes, we are all given rights. But it is up to us to used them responsibly. And failure to do so should (and does) come with ramifications.
Just like the 1st Amendment. Yes, you have a right to speak your mind. But it is not absolute. "Hate Speech" and "Inciting a riot" are illegal, as is other things, ranging from treason to sedition. And in the same way, some rights have been expanded over the centuries.
"Freedom of the Press" when it was written only covered the print media, because that was all there was at the time. But it also expanded to cover radio, newsreels, and later Television with the exact same protections. And the same with the Internet today.
If one is going to be 100% literal, as none of what we say here is "spoken", none of this is technically protected speech. Of course, anybody that claims that is an idiot, but a lot of people love to twist and interpret these and other parts of the Constitution to suit their own desires.
And finally, look at that phrase very carefully. For the most part, are those laws people are talking about Federal laws, or State laws?
This is yet another Constitutional minefield, but if a state enacts such a law, that is not "Congress". And the Supreme Court many times has essentially stated that a law is technically "Unconstitutional". Often attributed to President Lincoln, but the first known proven mention was by Justice Robert Jackson in a 1949 freedom of speech case.
}quote}This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.
There have been hundreds of cases like this, where various courts have basically said "Yes, you have a right, but you abuse it and that is what you are being punished for".
But it also expanded to cover radio, newsreels, and later Television with the exact same protections. And the same with the Internet today.
The Internet, under current law, gets special protection above and beyond others. If you write a letter to your local newspaper, and the newspaper publishes it, the newspaper itself is liable for anything you said in your letter. Internet companies such as Facebook, however, by law, are free from that liability.
If you write a letter to your local newspaper, and the newspaper publishes it, the newspaper itself is liable for anything you said in your letter. Internet companies such as Facebook, however, by law, are free from that liability.
Of course there are some major differences between your local newspaper and Facebook.
Your local newspaper is making individualized human decisions on which letters to publish. They also publish less than a dozen letters per day, rejecting far more than they actually publish.
By sheer volume, it would be impossible for Facebook to provide the same level of individualized human moderation before publication.
If Facebook had to have humans reviewing every submitted post before it actually went up, it would cut traffic on Facebook by 99.999%
it would cut traffic on Facebook by 99.999%
That would be a huge improvement! Heck, I might even be tempted to subscribe too (nah, never).
That would be a huge improvement! Heck,
But if you are just posting semi-private updates to family members (a lot of people use FB like this), would you really want live FB employees individually reviewing each post?
But if you are just posting semi-private updates to family members (a lot of people use FB like this), would you really want live FB employees individually reviewing each post?
If it were up to me fb wouldn't exist much longer. If you only use it for a limited group of family members I'm sure there's one of them that can set up something similar for just that group without selling their souls.
(for example https://diasporafoundation.org)
The problem with the 1st amendment is not something that can be fixed by an addendum.
The problem is that they should have put a period(.) after the fifth word and just stopped there. :)
The problem is that they should have put a period(.) after the fifth word and just stopped there. :)
Thereby undoing the entire Constitution! :-)
Of course, if SCOTUS didn't allow Congress to wield power not expressly delegated, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.
There were very few federal crimes for much of our history - counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and interfering with the mail. The phrase "don't make a federal case out of it" was in vogue because federal cases were rare things. Now everything is a federal crime.
Note that 'counterfeiting' could (very obviously) be argued to be 'freedom of the press'. One using a 'press' to make counterfeit money could argue that their freedom to do so was being unconstitutionally infringed in an absolutist reading of the First Amendment.
With 3D printing, one could - in theory, with technology we don't have yet - make the same argument around coinage.
Also, as I previously noted, prosecution for espionage (long a federal crime) inherently involves a limitation on 'free speech'.
Espionage is an act - not speech. The "speech" is an instrument of the act, no more speech than a ransom note in a kidnapping.
I agree with you that espionage is an act - not speech. However, consider someone who's selling military secrets that they have legitimate access to. There's one step: speaking the secret to someone not authorized to receive them. There is no other component to criminalize aside from their speech.
Nevertheless, it's a crime, and almost everyone would agree that it should be a crime.
Oh, you can say 'misuse of classified information' and dance around it, but the principle remains - the one thing they actually did is speech. If ALL speech is free, and cannot be penalized by the government, on what basis can the government penalize someone who happens to monologue state secrets to an interested audience? Coming up with something that works against First Amendment absolutism requires some amazing legal hair-splitting, considering that if our 'mole' X stays quiet, there's no crime, but if they make sounds/produce writings/etc, there's a crime.
Similar to what I said elsewhere, once the camel's nose is under the tent, it's not hard to find a criminalizable element around any other pure-speech act, and we find ourselves back to balancing rights and responsibilities.
Note that 'counterfeiting' could (very obviously) be argued to be 'freedom of the press'. One using a 'press' to make counterfeit money could argue that their freedom to do so was being unconstitutionally infringed in an absolutist reading of the First Amendment.
And, generally, only prosecuted if you tried to circulate the currency. I mean, how else would they have caught you? :-)
counterfeiting
Kitchen remodelers sometimes do counter fitting. Not quite sure what feiting means. I found this online. It was not much help.
"What does feited mean? - Definitions.nethttps://www.definitions.net ' definition ' feited
relating to a technique that does not involve puncturing the skin or entering a body cavity Β· A. hatched Β· B. reassuring Β· C. dependable Β· D. noninvasive ..."
And, generally, only prosecuted if you tried to circulate the currency. I mean, how else would they have caught you? :-)
I own a Monopoly set containing counterfeit money. The manufacturers haven't been arrested yet. Presumably nobody has tried to buy real houses or hotels with it.
AJ
I own a Monopoly set containing counterfeit money.
It's not counterfeit because it isn't a copy of and doesn't purport to be the official currency of a real country.
Aren't the American versions delimited in units of US dollars?
But they don't look anything like U.S. currency.
Actually, it just has the number on it, like 1 or 5 or 100. Nothing about it being dollars.
Actually, it just has the number on it, like 1 or 5 or 100. Nothing about it being dollars.
The same with my UK version, although pounds are mentioned in various places within the game.
However I have a stocks and shares trading game where the currency is in the form of notes with pound symbols on them.
There are regular stories in the media about people trying to pay for things with monopoly money. I suspect a small number might actually have succeeded.
AJ
There are regular stories in the media about people trying to pay for things with monopoly money. I suspect a small number might actually have succeeded.
Key points of US counterfeiting law is that it has to be a copy of official US currency and it has to involve an effort to defraud.
You can create your own unique currency and if you can get people to exchange goods and services for it, knowing it's not US currency, that's actually legal.
You can create your own unique currency and if you can get people to exchange goods and services for it, knowing it's not US currency, that's actually legal.
It's called Bitcoin, Etherium, Dogecoin, etc.
I think the thing you have to understand here, which many of us never think about is that the Bill of Rights were never meant to stand alone. Just as you can argue that one paragraph in a book means something completely different than the author intended, so do these amendments put a fine point on the meaning of the entire constitution. James Madison, the author, stated before he wrote the Bill of Rights, which were originally 12 amendments, that the constitution itself was sufficient unto itself. He wrote them and supported them because there were not enough states that agreed to ratify the constitution without them.
Having said that, in context the freedom of speech was understood to be political speech, made by white men who owned property. All men were not granted these rights until 80 years later and women until 130 years later. In fact black men were denied many of these rights by state governments even after they were legally granted them and many black men have been lynched, shot or imprisoned during my lifetime for merely looking a white man in the eyes.
The law has been open to interpretation by the Supreme Court over the years as is the court's duty under Article 3 of the constitution as it should be.
