TOPIC: What does the First Amendment of the United States of America's Constitution actually state?
DISCLAIMER: Neither I, Victor Hubress, or The Thirsty Spittoon, are connected or sponsored by any group deemed political in nature, nor do both above mentioned entities publicly support any political agenda
Just in case you have trouble reading the picture provided:
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.
SOURCE: Cornell University Law School
As a teacher, I hear students reference this amendment on a daily basis, claiming they can utter whatever profanities or stereotypical remarks they desire, and it simply saddens and disheartens me. In general, people seem to quote this amendment the most in reference to "free speech," disregarding or not remembering the other tenets included, so they can garrulously spout entertaining gossip, defamatory remarks, bias opinions, or prejudice beliefs; however, does "free speech" actually refer to any of the previously mentioned examples? Can anyone say anything about anyone and sit safely under the umbrella of this foremost amendment? Or have they interpreted its actual intent incorrectly?
To preface the rest of this post, I'd like to state I am simply attacking this topic from a semi-deconstructionist perspective, or the relationship between text and meaning; basically (although this perspective is much more involved than how I am employing it), critically analyzing text in this manner means historical perspectives, authorship perspectives, and pre-established perspectives about said text are discounted, and only the words and their relationship to each other are discussed.
If you read this amendment quickly, barely pausing for the commas or semi-colons, you just might hear the viewpoint I'm proposing before I even propose it: Who or what does not have any legal grounds to persecute the citizens of America when we establish and exercise a religion, when we invoke the freedoms of speech or the press, or we choose to assemble? Who or what can we practice a different religion from, can we freely speak about or publicly disseminate news about, or assemble against?
Based on the text of the first amendment, the answer: the government; private, nongovernmental individuals or interactions between private, nongovernmental entities were not included in the text.
Now I know the Supreme Court Justices over the years have interpreted this amendment in a broader sense, which of course is their main job responsibility and duty, but what if the precedents already set concerning this amendment were actually incorrectly interpreted from our founders intent? Our founders were geniuses (merely adding the ability to amend the Constitution to better serve the country is evidence of this fact), and they clearly were able to predict many of our nations future problems, but do you really think they envisioned a world where a written message could travel thousands of miles in seconds? Basically, do you think they ever realized the vast dispersing nature of Media and, ultimately, the inherent power of the Internet?
To preface the rest of this post, I'd like to state I am simply attacking this topic from a semi-deconstructionist perspective, or the relationship between text and meaning; basically (although this perspective is much more involved than how I am employing it), critically analyzing text in this manner means historical perspectives, authorship perspectives, and pre-established perspectives about said text are discounted, and only the words and their relationship to each other are discussed.
If you read this amendment quickly, barely pausing for the commas or semi-colons, you just might hear the viewpoint I'm proposing before I even propose it: Who or what does not have any legal grounds to persecute the citizens of America when we establish and exercise a religion, when we invoke the freedoms of speech or the press, or we choose to assemble? Who or what can we practice a different religion from, can we freely speak about or publicly disseminate news about, or assemble against?
Based on the text of the first amendment, the answer: the government; private, nongovernmental individuals or interactions between private, nongovernmental entities were not included in the text.
Now I know the Supreme Court Justices over the years have interpreted this amendment in a broader sense, which of course is their main job responsibility and duty, but what if the precedents already set concerning this amendment were actually incorrectly interpreted from our founders intent? Our founders were geniuses (merely adding the ability to amend the Constitution to better serve the country is evidence of this fact), and they clearly were able to predict many of our nations future problems, but do you really think they envisioned a world where a written message could travel thousands of miles in seconds? Basically, do you think they ever realized the vast dispersing nature of Media and, ultimately, the inherent power of the Internet?
As I stated in my disclaimer and earlier in this post, I do not own a political agenda; I'm simply interested in challenging commonly held beliefs, offering different perspectives, and engaging in quality debate: I have no plans or desires to "stick it to the man" or march on the steps of the White House or go on a public speech tour...I just like to make people think twice about commonly held beliefs...especially the next time you choose to gossip about someone else...if your gossip goes public, are you protected by the law for your so-called "free speech?"
OTHER RESOURES:
The Limits of First Amendment Protection
What Does Free Speech Mean?
OTHER RESOURES:
The Limits of First Amendment Protection
What Does Free Speech Mean?
No comments:
Post a Comment