PDA

View Full Version : Stick I


NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 16:33
Amendment I

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.

This means I have the right to say anything I want and any attempt, by anybody, to stop me is a violation of the 1st Amendment. It also means the press doesn't have to report the truth, they can report what they want. And I can drag policemen off their horses if they try to make me protest from behind a barricade.

:munchin

Solid
03-19-2004, 17:16
Where do libel and slander laws find their footing in that Right?

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 17:22
They don't. Its freedom of speech.

Solid
03-19-2004, 17:28
Surely you can litigate if someone prints something erroneous which has a clear negative impact on your life?

Solid

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 17:33
Negative. Freedom of speech.

Kyobanim
03-19-2004, 17:59
Originally posted by Solid
Surely you can litigate if someone prints something erroneous which has a clear negative impact on your life?

Solid

The short answer is "Only if it is a substanciated untruth." According the the amendment in it's unaltered form anyone can say anything regardless of whether it's true or not. Since then the Supreme Court has chimed in and "interprited" it to mean you can say anything you want as long as it is the truth.

From what I was taught, the Constitution is a guideline for creating laws. It's the Supreme court who determine if the law is worth the paper it's written on.

(NDD-fire for effect)

Solid
03-19-2004, 18:11
Ah. I'm going to find myself a little, shadowy corner to hide while properly educated people have this intellectual discussion.
Solid

Kyobanim
03-19-2004, 18:19
Originally posted by Solid
Ah. I'm going to find myself a little, shadowy corner to hide while properly educated people have this intellectual discussion.
Solid

Why? I'm hanging in for the count. I promise I won't let any of my blood splash on ya. :D

Solid
03-19-2004, 18:23
LMAO... reminds me of the tactic Sacamuelas used to lure me into the "protest" conversation- act nice and then show your teeth when I'm too close in to disengage!

I normally see the correct implementation of several of the Bill of Rights as 'to an extent'- for instance, I think free speech should be limited in the case of libel or slander. Of course, this raises the questions- to what extent? and: how can that extent be limited without giving the government too much power to abuse?

And now I hide :)

Solid

Kyobanim
03-19-2004, 18:32
Originally posted by Solid

I normally see the correct implementation of several of the Bill of Rights as 'to an extent'- for instance, I think free speech should be limited in the case of libel or slander. Of course, this raises the questions- to what extent? and: how can that extent be limited without giving the government too much power to abuse?

And now I hide :)

Solid

Limiting the govts power to abuse is covered by the judicial system, the the rights of individuals to appeal is the safegard in the system.

Roguish Lawyer
03-19-2004, 18:37
NDD:

Are you saying that freedom of speech is absolute? Or that it should be? How shouldn't it be?

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 18:38
I'm playing solataire.:munchin

Roguish Lawyer
03-19-2004, 18:41
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm playing solataire.

OK, I'll just watch. Actually, I'm going to the Lakers game. I'll catch up later.

NousDefionsDoc
03-19-2004, 18:43
Lucky bastard.

I think it free speech applies to the government, not individuals. I think it means what it says.

longrange1947
03-20-2004, 07:39
I think it free speech applies to the government, not individuals. I think it means what it says.

I think that the free speech amendment was meant to apply to all that would use it in expounding the truth. If your speech is false, then it is not protected, again look at the indivduals, they were not up to "gaming" the wording as do lawyers and politicians of now days.

They were tired of the restrictions placed on them for expressing "legitmate grievnces". That is the crux of the free speech amendment and why you cna not yell fire in a crowded theater. It is a false statement and is designed to do harm. Same if you are talking about libel and slander, which is expressing untruths for the harm of others.

Freedom of press is taken to the extreme and again was meant to stop the censoring of the press when trying to express grievances. Now days the press may express untruths, half truths and all forms fo garbage under the so called protection of hte first Amendment.

Please also not that the amendment prohibits the limiting of the free exercise of religion, but in the name of speration of church and state, which is not in the constitution, laws have been passed that do just that. The amendment was to prevent a formation of a "State Religion" that would prevent the free expression of other religions. And it was to protect the other religions.

Shoot away NDD. :munchin

longrange1947
03-20-2004, 07:42
I think it free speech applies to the government, not individuals. I think it means what it says.

Now I know you are trying to throw chum in the waters! :D

When an amendment has the words "the right of the people", then it is generally accepted to mean just that , the people. As in "We the People....", A fact loss on the antigunners and the 2nd Amendment.

(Go see Stick II)

NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 15:15
I'm not following you. The way I read it, the whole Bill of Rights is directed against the government trampling the folks. Not to allow on folk to say whatever he wants to another folk.

Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 15:17
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The way I read it, the whole Bill of Rights is directed against the government trampling the folks. Not to allow on folk to say whatever he wants to another folk.

This is correct. Absent "state action," there is no constitutional claim to be made. I can kick you out of my house if you call John Wayne a 'mo, for example. :D

NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 15:22
Right. So if I, as an individual not an agent of the government making a law, tell somebody to shut up, I am in no way violating their right to free speech.

Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 15:25
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Right. So if I, as an individual not an agent of the government making a law, tell somebody to shut up, I am in no way violating their right to free speech.

Correct.

NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 15:36
Good. Now that we've established I am correct on freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I say in the Alabama there was no violation by the judge. Now, if Congress had passed a law saying "There will be a statue of the 10 Commandments in every courthouse in America, then there is a violation.

Surgicalcric
03-21-2004, 15:40
Now I interpret this to mean the gov't shall not establish a state religion. It is not regulating when or where a person can worship according to their individual religion.

Alabama was wrong IMHO.

Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 15:55
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I say in the Alabama there was no violation by the judge. Now, if Congress had passed a law saying "There will be a statue of the 10 Commandments in every courthouse in America, then there is a violation.

You are ignoring the 14th Amendment.

NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 16:02
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You are ignoring the 14th Amendment.

How so?

Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 16:12
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
How so?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 16:16
Yeah, I read it. How was the judge violating it and which part?

Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 16:28
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Yeah, I read it. How was the judge violating it and which part?

He put a religious display up in a state courthouse. You can't do that.

Surgicalcric
03-21-2004, 16:30
Where did you get that from RL? I did not see that in there anywhere.

NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 16:39
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
He put a religious display up in a state courthouse. You can't do that.

How do you get that out of the 14th?

Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 17:06
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
How do you get that out of the 14th?

The 14th amendment applies the first ten to the states. There is a bunch of case law on this, but it is 1st amendment case law for the most part.

Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 17:09
Here, read the case.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre111802opn.pdf

This is why you want to rewrite the amendment.