Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

joshbaumgartner · 04-07-2006, 12:29 PM

The following is my own interpretation/opinion regarding the First Amendment.

It all boils down to freedom of thought and the inclusion of that thought in the commons. Attempting to found a government that was revolutionary in that unlike all before it--in that it served the people not the other way around--the framers had to ensure certain rights of the people. If a government is going to serve the people it has to answer to them. The people have to be able to petition the government when it does not serve them properly. But to do so, the people must have an idea of what they need and desire of their government. To know this they have to be able to hatch and share ideas about this, so that in a 'marketplace' of ideas, the true desires and needs of the people can be determined.

Thus the requirement for freedom of religion, and the prohibition on government establishment of religion, as the people must be free to think for themselves or else their ability to direct their own governance is meaningless. What good is it to have a government have to do what you say if that government can tell you what to think and limit what you can say? Freedom of religion is the most basic element of freedom of thought.

The requirement for freedom of speech, and of the press, is that if ideas are to be meaningful, you have to be able to share them. This isn't just the ability to complain and protest. This is the freedom to bring your ideas without restriction to the community where they can be shared and ultimately incorporated into the community as appropriate. Thus we are no longer restricted to the grand schemes of single individuals, but instead able to reap the benefits of the ideas of all individuals, melded together to come up with truly great ideas for the improvement of our quality of life. Naturally, it is also important to the development of thought that information be freely available, for thought is only as good as the information upon which it is based.

The rights to assembly and petition are how we actually turn these ideas into action, so that they may actually have an impact.

Without the ability to think freely, without the ability to share our thoughts and information with others, or without the ability to turn that information into action, we are powerless to control our government or to ensure its continued service to us. Thus the absolute necessity of the First Amendment rights to the experiment the framers were embarking upon--a government which served its citizens.

Given this as the basis for the Amendment, it gives me much greater clarity when answering questions about the impact of it on cases. Generally speaking if the end result is going to be a limitation on the peoples' ability to direct their own governance, then I am extremely wary of moving in that direction.

04-07-2006, 12:29 PM	#6 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	The following is my own interpretation/opinion regarding the First Amendment. It all boils down to freedom of thought and the inclusion of that thought in the commons. Attempting to found a government that was revolutionary in that unlike all before it--in that it served the people not the other way around--the framers had to ensure certain rights of the people. If a government is going to serve the people it has to answer to them. The people have to be able to petition the government when it does not serve them properly. But to do so, the people must have an idea of what they need and desire of their government. To know this they have to be able to hatch and share ideas about this, so that in a 'marketplace' of ideas, the true desires and needs of the people can be determined. Thus the requirement for freedom of religion, and the prohibition on government establishment of religion, as the people must be free to think for themselves or else their ability to direct their own governance is meaningless. What good is it to have a government have to do what you say if that government can tell you what to think and limit what you can say? Freedom of religion is the most basic element of freedom of thought. The requirement for freedom of speech, and of the press, is that if ideas are to be meaningful, you have to be able to share them. This isn't just the ability to complain and protest. This is the freedom to bring your ideas without restriction to the community where they can be shared and ultimately incorporated into the community as appropriate. Thus we are no longer restricted to the grand schemes of single individuals, but instead able to reap the benefits of the ideas of all individuals, melded together to come up with truly great ideas for the improvement of our quality of life. Naturally, it is also important to the development of thought that information be freely available, for thought is only as good as the information upon which it is based. The rights to assembly and petition are how we actually turn these ideas into action, so that they may actually have an impact. Without the ability to think freely, without the ability to share our thoughts and information with others, or without the ability to turn that information into action, we are powerless to control our government or to ensure its continued service to us. Thus the absolute necessity of the First Amendment rights to the experiment the framers were embarking upon--a government which served its citizens. Given this as the basis for the Amendment, it gives me much greater clarity when answering questions about the impact of it on cases. Generally speaking if the end result is going to be a limitation on the peoples' ability to direct their own governance, then I am extremely wary of moving in that direction.