First off, there is a lot of groundwork to be laid if these threads are going to be productive. I'm all for discussion and I don't want to invalidate anyone's opinion, but we need to lay out a framework and provide people with a working understanding before we dig too far into debate.
To all posters in these threads, I have a request:
Please distinguish between your interpretation of amendments, court actions, etc. and actual court decisions and precedents. It could be very easy to make our water murky here.
That said, I think that the fact that free speech exists within several very well established restrictions must be acknowledged. I refer you to
this pdf- Obscenity
- Child Pornography (separate from obscenity in that the Miller test need not be applied)
- Content based ("fighting words" etc)
- Commercial speech (is not afforded full protection)
- Defamation
- Speech harmful to children (which uses some of the above classifications)
- Incidental restrictions (such as prohibiting demonstrations on public park land for reasons incidental to the right of speech, such as preserving the environment)
With the exception of obscenity, the application of restrictions to free speech seems to uphold the idea that all speech is indeed free, though the speaker must bear the consequences of their speech. Take for example the commonly cited example of crying "Fire" falsely in a crowded theater. If there is no fire then this speech can be restricted as it would likely result in damage to people and property (or more clearly, the speaker could be held liable for damages). If there is a fire, then the speaker would likely be a hero.
I'll come back later with more material - there's a lot more to this amendment than just the freedom of speech.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
While it says that congress shall make 'no law' establishing religion, it also says 'the free exercise thereof' and thats a biggie. As you said, our nation was based upon a judeo-christian set of principles and I, personally, see nothing wrong witht 10 commandment displays, nativity scenes, etc. It's the free exercise of religious expression.
|
In my opinion, "free exercise thereof" does not encompass religious expression through governmental means. To me it looks like this is the direction modern interpretation is headed - and that's a change from the days of Christianity almost being endorsed without being established. It could be that the resurgence of the religious right in mainstream politics is a reaction to this direction in the courts.