US 1st Amendment

From reading various threads recently which are US centric but applies in so many places at the moment, I thought this might be helpful to an awful lot of members

Many countries have similar laws but to sum up

"I may think you are talking the biggest load of hateful, racist,(any other terms i forgot ) and bigoted load of old bollocks ever heard but I will defend your right to do so until death"

Millions have died across the world so that those of us lucky enough to live where we have that right and some people want to take that right away.

www.law.cornell.edu...

For those who cant be bothered clicking see below:

First Amendment: An Overview The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Freedom of Religion Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." However, some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and such statements. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general. Right to Assemble / Right to Petition The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government. Last Updated in June of 2017 by Tala Esmaili.

a reply to: johnb

Millions have died across the world so that those of us lucky enough to live where we have that right and some people want to take that right away.

Who exactly wants to take that right away from anyone?

a reply to: kruphix

Professors at berkley come to mind...

originally posted by: Benderisfunny
a reply to: kruphix

Professors at berkley come to mind...

Also the police in Charlottesville. The ACLU is taking part in a lawsuit against that city for refusing to defend the rights of protesters.

a reply to: kruphix

Just read almost any of the bigger political/social unrest threads over the last few years and you will see plenty of examples

Those above and no doubt a few more below (that's sounds kind of sinister somehow - above and below connotations i guess but anyway i digress)

a reply to: TheTory

Is there a new lawsuit? The only one I've seen names the city, not the police department.

From what I've read of the filing, it seems to me the Mayor and City Council were the ones trying to impede the protesters, and they were trying to use the police to do it.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: TheTory

Is there a new lawsuit? The only one I've seen names the city, not the police department.

From what I've read of the filing, it seems to me the Mayor and City Council were the ones trying to impede the protesters, and they were trying to use the police to do it.

Yes, I took care to say the ACLU is taking part in a lawsuit against the city. Perhaps I am wrong but I thought the police are employees of the city.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: johnb

Millions have died across the world so that those of us lucky enough to live where we have that right and some people want to take that right away.

Who exactly wants to take that right away from anyone?

I know who.

But I dare not say outloud.

a reply to: TheTory

Yes, and you took care to say the police wanted to take away free speech.

Seems to me the city government does, and is trying to use the police department to do it.


ETA - the reason I think it's germane is because the lawsuit cites claims made by the city government that contradict statements made by the police department in regards to the protest. An example of that would be the city claiming that too many people were expected to attend and that the city wouldn't be able to accommodate a crowd that size; the suit then goes on to cite the police department as having never suggested that it couldn't handle that crowd size.

Beyond that, generally when you're suing somebody over a civil rights violation, you sue the entities you believe violated your rights. The city is named, but not the police department, in this case. In cases of rights violations by police, the department is typically always named, as well as the locality, among others.

I am fully for the first amendment in totality. There are those who speak in such a reprobate way, with such vitriol and treachery that there comes a point where the tables need be turned. If their going to rally promoting rioting and violence, and the toppling of government or threaten, then they should be tried for Sedition. Harvard Law school be damned.

a reply to: johnb

*gasp!*

You started a thread about the First Amendment. That makes you a quadruple racist with no take-backs.

Good thread, btw.

Nobody is arguing that we don't have free speech, are they?

It's just that there are consequences. Like Impeachment.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Nobody is arguing that we don't have free speech, are they?

It's just that there are consequences. Like Impeachment.

And ... now this is all about Trump?

Really?

Get a grip. This is the same representation that white supremacists have always had at their rallies. They get a pathetic few maybe a couple hundred. It's never been more than that since their heyday.

And, yeah, like it or not. They're allowed to do their hateful rallies so long as they don't break the law doing it.

BLM has the same right ... right up until they riot. ANTIFA can do it too, right up until they start fights and assault people as part of their counter protests, so long as they get the permits to counter march to begin with.

It's really not complicated as much as we all dislike the groups who are involved here and their messages.

originally posted by: johnb
From reading various threads recently which are US centric but applies in so many places at the moment, I thought this might be helpful to an awful lot of members

Many countries have similar laws but to sum up

"I may think you are talking the biggest load of hateful, racist,(any other terms i forgot

) and bigoted load of old bollocks ever heard but I will defend your right to do so until death"

Millions have died across the world so that those of us lucky enough to live where we have that right and some people want to take that right away.

www.law.cornell.edu...

For those who cant be bothered clicking see below:

First Amendment: An Overview The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Freedom of Religion Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." However, some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and such statements. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general. Right to Assemble / Right to Petition The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government. Last Updated in June of 2017 by Tala Esmaili.

OP... seriously APPLAUD you bringing this issue to the fore in a post... just wanted to play devils advocate a little with the text (and link) to Cornell Law. Folks should keep in mind... that the legal opinion shared is just THAT... a legal opinion.

The totality of the argument (Socratically speaking) about the interpretation of what constitutes "free speech" is WAY beyond my desire or knowledge to tackle in a discussion.

That's all... just wanted to add a little context to your post about what may be the most important issue we are faced with right now.

The First Amendment is under VERY VERY serious threat right now... because... of ignorance. Political hacks and the media are shaping peoples understanding of American Civil Rights... and it is, arguably, more dangerous to our country than an invading army.

An invasion has a clear enemy. A diseased "idea meme" that triggers a redefinition of the foundation Amendment of our rights as Americans has already seriously infected the nation.

I'll be dead in a couple/few decades... but MANY folks I love will not be.

I am afraid for them, and for scores of other decent folks who are just busy trying to get through their lives.

a reply to: dasman888

The First Amendment is under VERY VERY serious threat right now... because... of ignorance. Political hacks and the media are shaping peoples understanding of American Civil Rights... and it is, arguably, more dangerous to our country than an invading army.

We have met the enemy, and he is we. No real argument there, really.

People have, apparently, decided that it is better for others to do their thinking for them.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Nobody is arguing that we don't have free speech, are they?

It's just that there are consequences. Like Impeachment.

Throwing rocks and macing people isn't quite impeachment.
But it is letting counter-protesters get out of hand by not placing police between the 2 groups.
It was in invitation for violence and you can count on the left starting it up.

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: kruphix

Just read almost any of the bigger political/social unrest threads over the last few years and you will see plenty of examples

Those above and no doubt a few more below (that's sounds kind of sinister somehow - above and below connotations i guess but anyway i digress)

The 1st amendment only protects you from the Congress passing a law concerning freedom of speech.

Doesn't say anything about College Professors, Police Officers, Protesters...just the Congress.

So unless Congress is passing a law restricting free speech, you have absolutely nothing to complain about.