the first ammendment

[JacobJ]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise therof; 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

In what ways do you think the freedoms outlined in the above statement are, or are not, being currently violated by the government?

It seems that it is rather difficult to 'peaceably assemble.' If you are a politician good luck if you want to spend money to promote your cause or other causes(how many laws has congress made about political speech!?!?)

Congress recently dramatically increased the fine for (arbitrarily defined) obsenity on tv -- another law that abridges(or doesn't?) abridge the freedom of speech.

Should we change the constitution in order to make such laws legal? Or should the laws be removed? Its all so confusing....but its clear to me that

free speech is getting more difficult...

(especially when you're being spied on)

 

[piasabird]

TV is not free speech, if someone is paying for it.

advertisers pay for their time and most actors do not work for free. Therefore it is a commercial enterprise and not free speech.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: piasabird
TV is not free speech, if someone is paying for it. /Q]

clever.

Therefore the laws abridging the freedom of speech are ok?

advertisers pay for their time and most actors do not work for free. Therefore it is a commercial enterprise and not free speech.

What is it about a commercial enterprise that makes its speech not fall under the second ammendment?

Are you saying there is a fundamental difference between commercial speech and non-commercial speech? A difference so fundamental that commercial speech can be regulated up the hoo-haw?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

It seems that it is rather difficult to 'peaceably assemble.' If you are a politician good luck if you want to spend money to promote your cause or other causes(how many laws has congress made about political speech!?!?)

How many laws? Too many. Glad I'm not the only one (along with such wide-ranging groups as the ACLU and the Christian Coalition) that's noticed the censorship being passed as "campaign finance reform".

Congress recently dramatically increased the fine for (arbitrarily defined) obsenity on tv -- another law that abridges(or doesn't?) abridge the freedom of speech.

To me, this is way overblown, as long as it's limited to the public airwaves, and the FCC leaves cable and satellite services alone. Controversial/indecent material is still readily and easily available anywhere.

Should we change the constitution in order to make such laws legal? Or should the laws be removed?

More like a strict constructionist court should just throw this stuff (restrictions on political speech) out the window.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: piasabird
TV is not free speech, if someone is paying for it. /Q]

clever.

Therefore the laws abridging the freedom of speech are ok?

advertisers pay for their time and most actors do not work for free. Therefore it is a commercial enterprise and not free speech.

What is it about a commercial enterprise that makes its speech not fall under the second ammendment?

Are you saying there is a fundamental difference between commercial speech and non-commercial speech? A difference so fundamental that commercial speech can be regulated up the hoo-haw?

yes there are laws abridging total free speech. The old yelling "fire" in a movie theater argument comes to mind. Which seems a reasonible compromise in living in a civil society.

The theory of airwaves (both TV and Radio) is it is a limited public reasource that is regulated by the government. Because of that the government does put some restricts on it.

Threats of bodliy harm are also restricted.

Do laws that restrict people from walking on the freeway or railroad tracks, conflict with the right to peacable assembly?

 

[shortylickens]

As long as Bush says its OK, then its OK.

He's smarter than us and wants to protect America.

(Normally I'd use the roll eyes icon here, but thats been starting to bug me lately.)

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
As long as Bush says its OK, then its OK.

He's smarter than us and wants to protect America.

(Normally I'd use the roll eyes icon here, but thats been starting to bug me lately.)

blaming bush is rather meaningless. This is a much larger issue that has been going on before bush got in office, and will continue when he's gone.

What role does he play in it though? Maybe that's a good question....

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: piasabird
TV is not free speech, if someone is paying for it.

advertisers pay for their time and most actors do not work for free. Therefore it is a commercial enterprise and not free speech.

Uh, what?

:Q

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
yes there are laws abridging total free speech. The old yelling "fire" in a movie theater argument comes to mind. Which seems a reasonible compromise in living in a civil society.

The theory of airwaves (both TV and Radio) is it is a limited public reasource that is regulated by the government. Because of that the government does put some restricts on it.

Threats of bodliy harm are also restricted.

Do laws that restrict people from walking on the freeway or railroad tracks, conflict with the right to peacable assembly?

Exactly, we have the right to free speech IF it doesn't override our more critical rights. Sometimes you have to choose one right or the other, and the less important right gets the regulations. Using the example above, I do not have the right to ask someone to murder another person. That person's right to life is more important than my right to speak that I want him/her dead.

None of the examples in this thread in any way restrict WHAT I can say. They just restrict where or when I can say it. Thus, I'm still perfectly free to say whatever I want.

And I hate people thinking that freedom of SPEECH applies to other tasks. Spending money isn't speech. Donating to a politician isn't speech.

 

[PrinceofWands]

In my own opinion the greatest infringement of the first amendment deal with religion.

The pledge of allegience is a violation, and a danger. The inclusion of religious text/symbols in ceremonies, on our money, and so on. The dedicated attacks on morality by the right especially. Pretty much anything this administration does.

A close second are the rights to assemble and a free press. Actual infringement of free speech isn't as prevelent as these others as I see it.

 

[daniel49]

freedom of religion is stomped on continually by aclu.
Things that had been going on for 100 years + that no one ever had a problem with all of a sudden are seperation of church and state issues , ( as seen by activist judges)

see post just above me case and point****

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: daniel49
freedom of religion is stomped on continually by aclu.
Things that had been going on for 100 years + that no one ever had a problem with all of a sudden are seperation of church and state issues , ( as seen by activist judges)

see post just above me case and point****

I agree, that before this administration the attack was against religion. Now, the attacks are from religion. Either way, it is a gross violation.

You're completely uninformed if you truly believe there was no dialogue on these issues before the ACLU. Debate has existed on these topics since the nation was first settled, and both sides have always been represented in it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: dullard
None of the examples in this thread in any way restrict WHAT I can say. They just restrict where or when I can say it. Thus, I'm still perfectly free to say whatever I want.

Well, except libel and slander.

And I hate people thinking that freedom of SPEECH applies to other tasks. Spending money isn't speech. Donating to a politician isn't speech.

Freedom of speech is worthless without a realistic ability to broadcast one's message. Which, today, takes $$. Lots of it. Theoretically, even Chinese dissidents have 'freedom of speech' - it's just that no one hears them outside the prisons and labor camps. I'm not saying the ability to donate money to a party or politician is itself a constitutional right (I don't believe it is), but restrictions on such donations are highly suspect, as they have the effect of limiting speech of that candidate. As it stands now, the money limits just protect incumbency. Personally, I'd do away with all limits, with the only requirement being that they all be made public. The electorate should know what groups are paying various politicians.

 

[CanOWorms]

I think that you could put advertising regulations/bans (like tobacco) under restriction of freedom of speech.

 

[JEDIYoda]

most of these replies to this post are what happens when you have a website such as this populated mainly by 13 yr olds...lol