Brandon (s1natra_l1ves) wrote in amended_first,
Brandon
s1natra_l1ves
amended_first

  • Mood:
  • Music:

life is too short, so love the one you've got

The first amendment isn't a mandate deeming all restrictions on speech, assembling, religion, and press absolutely unconstitutional.

Quite contrary. The amendment wasn't added because our founding fathers wished our nation to be an absolute anarchist's playground. It definitely doesn't protect the right of cannabils to assemble. Or the right to send a death threat to your teacher.
There are restrictions that deem what speech is protected.

The amendment was added to ensure that if we were upset with the powers that be- how things are ran, who's running it, the support of radical views, etc.- we could still be heard. So the government couldn't silence everyone, stop them from practicing their own version of their own religion. Prevent them from identifying problems in authority. Be it the corporation, city, state, or national authority.

You can protest an abortion clinic or build a temple on your property to practice buddhism in your community. The government can not prevent news from being broadcast on the radio, tv, or in newspapers. Anti- Bush books, essays, and speeches, short of slander and libel, are also protected under the first amendment.


An explanation of protection restrictions under our first amendment is here.

Ask questions in comments. I'll do my best to answer.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 0 comments