Quote:
First Amendment: An Overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.
Freedom of Religion
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." However, some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.
Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and such statements.
A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
Right to Assemble / Right to Petition
The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.
The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.
|
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
They're all for that first until it doesn't fit their
opinion.
I don't condone nor support the neonazi's or klan.
They obtained a permit to protest the taking down of a statue. Their stance, their ideology
irrelevant. If one is for free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to protest the government, they're for it in its entirety. Not cherry pick which groups, which ideologies, which class of people use it.
That is why Anti
fa is referred to as Anti
First
Amendment.
Had they been left alone that day, their protest would have been a couple of hours of shouting into bullhorns and falling on deaf ears and nobody take them seriously. Would have been a 5 minute story on the news. And nothing more.
They got what they really wanted.
The counter protesters showed up, gave them relevancy and attention. They
could go after the police for not diverting the counter protesters, or cry victim that their first amendment right to free speech, freedom to assemble, were infringed.
And nobody is smart enough to realise this... they're letting emotions control them.
One can subjectively argue, those monuments represent racism/oppression and can protest to take the statues and monuments down.
One can subjectively argue, those monuments have significant historical value to show how far we've come since those times to serve as a reminder of Never again.
One could subjectively argue, those monuments are of homage to soldiers/battles for states rights.
Subjective opinion is allowed under the freedom of speech/expression.
And now that the ACLU has announced this... who knows what is next... maybe they will try a lawsuit...
You don't give your adversaries relevancy or attention, unlike cancer, if ignored, they'll go away... give them attention, and a reason to exist, they'll never go away. By attacking them physically, you give them exactly what they were looking for. They came armed. Both sides came armed. State law allows open carry....
Personally, if I wanted to protest the taking down of a confederate monument, I wouldn't go recruiting the klan or neonazis. I'd surround myself with historians and deny the fringe supremacist groups the opportunity to mingle. And when antifa showed up, attacked me and who stood with me. Stand there and take it. Let them swing and do what they felt they needed to do... then call my lawyer up and go after those responsible.
The police for not separating the counter protesters.
The counter protesters.
Whomever financially supported the counter protesters.
Unfortunately. That would make me a martyr, and possible fringe groups use that as a recruitment tool in my name. Nah. I wouldn't want that. No need to get even on my behalf and justify violence against them. Just expose antifa for what they are, another domestic terrorist group.
Gotta be smart and civil about it. Like Martin Luther King.
Non Violent. Be the bigger and better person. Do not stoop to a low level.
It's okay if you disagree with my opinion. It's okay if you want to assemble in my front yard and picket/protest. That's your Constitutional right. Moment you become violent, the moment you become destructive, the moment you block the flow of traffic, you commit a crime.
And nobody is seeing it for the bigger picture.
Whether the motive is to cause so much unrest to justify an impeachment, deligitimize Trump and his administration, or push and ramp up to the use of lethal force to push harsher gun control laws.
I'm not buying for one minute this was all about fighting for equality or fighting for what is "right".
Sad to say, I believe the gloves are off, and fringe elements will rise on all spectrums, to the point where there is something drastic and tragic resulting. And it's not needed, nor wanted.
However these are isolated events brought live via news feeds, tvs, mobile devices, social media. In the real world, people are still smiling, birds still chirping, sky isn't falling. Succumb to fear and hate you only have yourself to blame... regardless what side you are on.
Be above it.
Everyone. Liberal. Conservative. Independent. Black, White, Hispanic, Asain, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Flying Spaghetti Monster. Old. Young. Wealthy. Impoverished.
This is America. And it's turning into something it never intended to be.
Sometimes I wish that dreaded EMP attack would happen. That way everyone would have to return to thinking and doing for themselves and their immediate loved ones, with no connection to the vitriol, succumbing to irrational emotion-
Fear.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
