Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we are "strict" about the First Amendment.

[howard112211]

This seems to be a holy cow type of thing: The notion that in America we respect the First Amendment in the strictest possible way, in the way it is written and without any additions to the pure text as it is written. People routinely use this argument in discussions: We have freedom of speech. And pretend like that is the end of the story. These same people then often take a "holier than thou" type of stance, arguing that the opponent in the argument does not fully respect the First Amendment.

Let's look at the "law as it is written". Here is the text:


"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."


The text is very clear: Shall make no law. Meaning none at all. In the strictest sense of the words, therefore making death threats to the president is legal. Using spoken words to reveal state secrets is. Slander is. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is too. Also any type of obscenity, including all types of pornography, or their unrestricted distribution. Also calling police officers obscene names.

If one extends "speech" to also mean "expression", which is routinely done (but actually in no way justifiable from the raw text), then all forms of indecent exposure are perfectly legal.

Also, in the strictest sense of the word, the law applies only to congress. It says nothing about how individuals should treat the freedom of speech of other people.

Let's not let people fool us that they hold that pure and untainted "law as it is written" approach to the First Amendment. No one does. The reality is that a gigantic amount of interpretation, with many additions that are not specifically in the text, comes about when this law is to be translated into judicial practice.

[slackmaster]

1. First Amendment has been incorporated. It applies to the states as well.

The states can adopt limits on expression within reason. Beyond that, conflicts between the rights of individuals fall under civil law.

[whyverne]

2. So the President could say, "If you burn those korans, I'm going

to drop a cruise missile on your head". Not that I want him to, but the law does stipulate Congress.

[dkf]

3. You are much too logical.

Much of the argument is not based on congress law making but on the demand that all people adhere to the "values" they say are expressed by the amendment. It's more of a societal demand for all to think and live a certain way. The thought police in full force.

[unblock]

4. i don't think slander is against the law per se

in the sense that it's not a crime.

your free speech can cause damage to individuals and businesses, and they can seek a remedy in civil courts, but that's not the same as congress restricting your freedom of speech.

also, i don't think it's illegal to call police officers obscene names. it's certainly not a brilliant idea if they pull you over, but it's not illegal per se. i'm sure you could print a newspaper article calling them all sorts of names and you wouldn't go to jail. but i'd stay below the speed limit after that!