Stick I
 

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

Where do libel and slander laws find their footing in that Right?

They don't. Its freedom of speech.

Surely you can litigate if someone prints something erroneous which has a clear negative impact on your life?

Solid

Negative. Freedom of speech.

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)

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

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

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.

NDD:

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

I'm playing solataire.:munchin

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

Lucky bastard.

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