Is it time to amend the First Amendment?

MayCaesar

It is precisely the actions that others see as reckless, offensive, unacceptable that have to be protected constitutionally. Actions that do not upset anyone do not need protection, for there is no one who would want to retaliate in response to them to begin with. But the actions that cause virtually everyone to want to murder the person committing them... why, it is those actions protecting which the state exists for in the first place. I am not talking about actions like rape or murder - those themselves constitute violation of other people's rights - but actions that do not, yet they cause people great emotional distress.

Suppose I were to say that the only mistake Hitler made is not exterminating every single Jew, but only some of them. Furthermore, suppose I were to yell that while standing in front of the Capitol building, in front of 10,000 peaceful pro-Israel protesters. My actions would cause great distress to a lot of these protesters, and some of the hotheads might decide that I should suffer, perhaps mortally, for what I did. Yet objectively all I did was express an opinion in public while standing on public land (the land around the Capitol building as public as lands can get). This is exactly the kind of speech that needs protecting the most. People are free to be as upset over my words as they want, they are free to yell insults at me, they are free to dispute my opinion - but their feelings do not justify silencing me, just as my feelings do not justify silencing them and stopping their peaceful demonstration.

If anything, the First Amendment should be strengthened: not only should the government refrain from issuing any laws restricting free speech, but the government should also go out of its way to make sure that those who exercise said right are protected from wrath of those who would rather not hear their words.

Responsibility enters the equation not at the lawmaking stage, but at the civil stage. If you say things that others see as inappropriate, then your social circle will be restricted, many people will not want to see you in their gatherings, workplaces, sports events... You annoy people with your preaching - you pay the price of their unacceptance. It is just how any society naturally operates. Said society becomes tyrannical when either the annoyed people can hurt you physically and not be reprimanded by the state, or the state itself can hurt you physically.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Action Needed

@MayCaesar
In the case of the individual expressing hateful views at the pro-Israel protest, the government should take steps to ensure that the protesters' right to peaceful assembly is respected. This should include providing security for the protesters and ensuring that the individual's speech does not escalate into violence.

John_C_87

@Openminded

Is it time to review, clarify and even amend the meaning of the First Amendment?

I' m going to start small show us you understand as an ability to preserve, protect and defend United States Constitutional Right before you dare attempt to adopt change to it. Let’s start basic a right is not a crime do you understand the self-evident truth in that fact. There is no interpretation around the two truth held as one self-evident truth. This is a basic first step and believe me many people can not even preserve that basic requirement.

" 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 is not a criminal law. This is a united state of truths as right a law of the other states. One which is not criminal. The grievance that has been made against American United States Constitutional Right is old. It is very old and has to do with nothing else then why America's Federal Government needed no criminal law on its books to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution.

in Order to form a more perfect Union, Preamble introduction of fact as truth, In our grievance to address the 1st amendment as an Article to be expanded upon by Section. What is missing as to the reason for our separation. To make connection between the differences of liberty and freedom, the differences between with a cost and without a cost. Free.

Openminded you should be told your Constitutional Right here. It may come to a time when we could be asked to appear before an Armed Service tribunal for what we are doing. We would be expected to address the tribunal with the bullet that might be used against us if we are to be found wrong in an act of treason against the American Constitution. So language is important we are in search for a more perfect union and are to ensure tranquility while doing so. The 1st Amendment does not offer liberty in this regard, yet. If it should or should not has not been determined. What list of changes might you suggest to add as truth to the 1st Amendment?

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

This is always where you get lost from me MayCaesar. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " This is not about criminal law it is United State Constitutional Right It is a held truth the American Congress has never passed a law respecting  an establishment of religion. At best it was men who had passed crimes which create criminal laws to perform that task. It was not the Congress itself as a truth it is the men voted  into office. Officers of Congress are sworn into the office. These men historically could have been impeached as a President of the United States of America. Language, at this time historically a women as Presadera being member of Congress could be impeached. As she has been at minimal requirements declared in verbal grievance as created equal to all other women by her creator, with the use of no criminal written crime, by a uncontested right said to be Presadera.

This is a lie civil law is practiced at the level of same level as criminal law. Due to the breaking of the United States constitutional rights union made during the practice of law. The preservation is not possible as a whole truth or self-evident truth anymore by civil court.. Accountability.... "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence." " Aftabilfh juftice." translation arguement astablished justice.W3e broke our ties to be with England only.

Bogan

The way that the Biden administration is going, trying to jail their main political opponent, and using Federal agents to censor news and spread disinformation, now is defiiantly not the right time to disarm the people.    The USA is heading for either a new Revolutionary war, or another civil war.      Multiculturalism does not work.   We told you so.    

Openminded

@MayCaesar @MayCaesar

Is it time to review, clarify and even amend the meaning of the First Amendment? In our current political climate, I find the argument FOR the first amendment is being used recklessly.  It seems that many Americans believe their first amendment right allows them to freely and recklessly express themselves. For every right we are granted, shouldn´t we have a responsibility to protect this right?

It is precisely the actions that others see as reckless, offensive, unacceptable that have to be protected constitutionally. Actions that do not upset anyone do not need protection, for there is no one who would want to retaliate in response to them to begin with. But the actions that cause virtually everyone to want to murder the person committing them... why, it is those actions protecting which the state exists for in the first place. I am not talking about actions like rape or murder - those themselves constitute violation of other people's rights - but actions that do not, yet they cause people great emotional distress. I agree with this. Though times have changed dramatically since our forefathers wrote the First Amendment in its very vague state. Could our forefathers possibly have known the trajectory globalization, social media and technology would take us? If so, would they have better defined 1A as a sacred privilege to be used respectfully and responsibly? As I stated, in this political climate we´re currently in, and with the inundation of lax, loosely regulated social media sites, there is an increase in reckless, chaotic, hateful and angry speech that pushes the boundaries of our First Amendment. Yelling ¨FIRE¨ in an overcrowded room that causes violence and destruction immediately after is NOT protected under 1A. I fear that many Americans don´t understand this difference. Will the allowance of reckless, irresponsible speech on social media that reaches and incites millions of people into anger and hate - not in an immediate way - but in a very slow, insidious and extensive way - cause EVENTUAL violence, destruction and death? I believe that people who abuse this right by believing that ANYTHING expressed is protected speech will eventually lead to revisiting The First Amendment clause.

Suppose I were to say that the only mistake Hitler made is not exterminating every single Jew, but only some of them. Furthermore, suppose I were to yell that while standing in front of the Capitol building, in front of 10,000 peaceful pro-Israel protesters. My actions would cause great distress to a lot of these protesters, and some of the hotheads might decide that I should suffer, perhaps mortally, for what I did. Yet objectively all I did was express an opinion in public while standing on public land (the land around the Capitol building as public as lands can get). This is exactly the kind of speech that needs protecting the most. The People are free to be as upset over my words as they want, they are free to yell insults at me, they are free to dispute my opinion - but their feelings do not justify silencing me, just as my feelings do not justify silencing them and stopping their peaceful demonstration. Yes, I agree with this.

If anything, the First Amendment should be strengthened: not only should the government refrain from issuing any laws restricting free speech, but the government should also go out of its way to make sure that those who exercise said right are protected from wrath of those who would rather not hear their words. I agree that the First Amendment SHOULD be strengthened. But along with strengthening that right, more clarity should be given to WHAT is PROTECTED under the First Amendment and what is NOT PROTECTED. There seems to be a lot of confusion in this area.

Responsibility enters the equation not at the lawmaking stage, but at the civil stage. If you say things that others see as inappropriate, then your social circle will be restricted, many people will not want to see you in their gatherings, workplaces, sports events... You annoy people with your preaching - you pay the price of their unacceptance. It is just how any society naturally operates. Said society becomes tyrannical when either the annoyed people can hurt you physically and not be reprimanded by the state, or the state itself can hurt you physically. I see, yes, responsibility is at the civil stage. But it just may be that the misunderstanding of what is protected could conceivably lead to certainly doing a better job of teaching our First Amendment if not, dare I say, amending it.

Openminded

@Bogan

The way that the Biden administration is going, trying to jail their main political opponent, and using Federal agents to censor news and spread disinformation, now is defiiantly not the right time to disarm the people.    The USA is heading for either a new Revolutionary war, or another civil war.      Multiculturalism does not work.   We told you so.

This was not a political post but since you´re there.  We will have to see what our judicial system decides on trump. I will say one thing about trump. He set up his army immediately, manipulated his supporters by stoking distrust and suspicion of all gov´t entities, media, journalism.  It worked. ¨Lugenpresse¨ a Hitler quote meaning Lying Press. Get it? Fake Media, Fake News? My post was about The First Amendment and should it be clarified or amended.

John_C_87

@Bogan

The way that the Biden administration is going, trying to jail their main political opponent, and using Federal agents to censor news and spread disinformation, now is defiiantly not the right time to disarm the people.    The USA is heading for either a new Revolutionary war, or another civil war.          

There has been a covert Civil War in America for over 50 years, and it started in 1960s. The end of the Vietnam War was overstated by the media supporting principles of protesters over united states constitutional right in the 1960.Where a negotiation to reach a ceasefire took place and the yielded migrated Migration of the Civil War into America as a covert War the Civil War didn't end the restrictions of U.S. Constitution had been only strong enough to limited most open Combat. Multiculturalism does not work.   We told you so.

Saying something does not work is not enough we need a common defense towards a general welfare the can secure tranquility. A fact as truth that can stop fighting over detailed grievances which have been exposed in the open. Please do not interrupt the deliberations to adding improved connections to the states of union between the American Constitutional right and established justice...Read, listen ask questions and contribute get your sea legs so to speak.

John_C_87

@Openminded
There are three major issues which need to be addressed by ratification of consitutional right into American United State Consitution. Each of the three have their on merits on which should be most imoprtant as a prioiry of a President or Presadera of the American Consitution. Article II moving the contex of the article to include " she " A declaration of Independence to create all women equal with on right word like Presadera in not that filed title against established grievance, Civil Right. Keep in mind a civil criminal law may be written for a principle interpritation of right it is still however by fact nothing less the a crime of law and not a Civil Right of Law. The genderal welfare of the ensured tranquility has been found by the courts to be lacking. The establishment of these truths are set documented by the number of pending investigations of both exsecutive officers #45 and #46.  

@ Openminded stop talking doing something, write and show us your improved connections between the 1st Amendment and established justice. Do not give excuses as to why you are not writing these improvements. I should have mine ready by Thursday November 30th sometime. Is that adequate time for you?

John_C_87

@mayCaesar is that enough time for you? Do you need more time? Thursday November 30th 1st United States Constitutional Amendment complete with improvements to established justice made by only right and no new ideas about added written crimes?

But the actions that cause virtually everyone to want to murder the person committing them... why, it is those actions protecting which the state exists for in the first place. I am not talking about actions like rape or murder - those themselves constitute violation of other people's rights - but actions that do not, yet they cause people great emotional distress.

These are all very good points that are to be addressed within Article II the choice of direction has to be made though, which gets an attempt at improvement for ratification first. Rape, Abortion, and President are a United State which can become a series of truths set as fact to direct the connections between Constitutional Right and established justice for all women. As a dialog the understanding is by law of nature a women is an ambassador which creates a very simple choice about what is the best prescription to write for a link between Immunity of come limited crimes historically already well documented. A ambassadorship or the refusal to enforce justice by the powers of the court of Executive order of the Oval office? It is a tough question to answer but it is the right to choices to state the importance of what is at stake.

Shake the dust off this record radio one...Eagles Eye, Legancy, victum of love. 2013 remastered.

Bogan

@Openminded

Openminded quote   This was not a political post but since you´re there.

 Everything dealing with human group interactions is political, my dear Openminded. 

 

Openminded quote        We will have to see what our judicial system decides on trump.

I am astounded by your attitude.  As we say in Australia, “Blind Freddy” can see that the US justice system is broken and corrupt.   Vladamir Putin puts his main political rival in jail to stay in power, and you probably condemn that?   But when the Democrats do exactly what Putin has done, you adopt the three monkey approach to the persecution of the USA’s most popular Presidential candidate.

Openminded quote        I will say one thing about trump. He set up his army immediately, manipulated his supporters by stoking distrust and suspicion of all gov´t entities, media, journalism.  It worked.

 It worked because he was right, and many US Democratic electors can now see how the corrupt Dems and their house trained media hoodwinked them.     The US bureaucracy is corrupt at the top, and too many democratic politicians are on the take.        And that includes Biden and his entire family, who are setting a great example for Democratic ideals.    The USA once lectured other countries about how wrong corruption is, and how wrong it is for an incumbent to legally persecute his main political rival.       Today, the only example that the USA is setting, is that if crooks get powerful enough, even in the world’s greatest democracy, they can entrench themselves so deep that only armed revolution can unseat them.      As Stalin once quipped.  “it does not matter how people vote, what matters is, who counts the votes.   

 

 Openminded quote   ¨Lugenpresse¨ a Hitler quote meaning Lying Press. Get it? Fake Media, Fake News? My post was about The First Amendment and should it be clarified or amended.

 Hmmmm, lets see.   “Russia collusion”    The claim by the FBI and the intel community that Hunter’s Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation.”     The Jesse Gusset scandal, where the fake news media fell all over each other claiming that poor Jussie was the victim of MAGA supporter racism and violence.       The claim by the fake news press that Nick Sandmann’s smile was proof of his inherent racism.    Mr Sandmann won his slander suite against the fake news press for that one.   The blanket condemnation of Kylie Rittenhouse by the leftist media who claimed that he was a right wing extremist who was guilty of murder.     Kylie is now suing the crooked and hardly impartial left obsessed media for slander too, and I am sure he will win.       Then there was the vicious attack by the fake news press on Donald Trump when he correctly named the Wuhan lab as the source of the COVID-19 outbreak.     9 months later this same bunch of feeble minded activists masquerading as journalists had to eat some very unpalatable crow, when it became so obvious that the Wuhan lab was indeed the source of the outbreak   Continuing to deny self evident reality just to sneer at Trump was making them all look like the id-iots they are.     Even today, as the evidence that Biden is probably the most corrupt President in US history, the fake news media just whistles and looks the other way.    The reason?  They are all scratching each others backs because they are all part of “the swamp”.

John_C_87

@Bogan

I am astounded by your attitude.  As we say in Australia, “Blind Freddy” can see that the US justice system is broken and corrupt.   Vladamir Putin puts his main political rival in jail to stay in power, and you probably condemn that?   But when the Democrats do exactly what Putin has done, you adopt the three monkey approach to the persecution of the USA’s most popular Presidential candidate.

The American justice system is not broken or corrupt it is no longer a United State. The Constitutional right has been changed to a Constitutional judicial system judging only criminal law. This is the sacrifice all global nations have undertaken to say they have won the race on sexual des crimination an have illegally elected a women as a President of their own nations. American not the United States of America is well on its way to performing this state of the union with criminal law and criminal enforcement as well.

The protection of United State Constitutional Right still applies to the people to search for the more perfect union with established justice in America even as one united state such as two kinds of law criminal civil  law is used to replace Constitutional United State right as law. The power of voting being the key for the criminal law process to assume a limited liability for its imperfection by the abuse of democracy. These type government improvements have historically shown that the people simple vote on the creator of imperfection maybe even a factitious side to which they may belong like in America, democrat or republican. All political representation voted on in America is republican.

There are Presidential and Presidential candidates in America there is not one filing title for both men and women that can be describe as a whole truth for both. Second outside of America woman a declaration of Independence has not been publicly made that all women are created equal by their creator. This is evidence that can be admitted into a court that something does exist as fact a United State Constitutional Right that can be said in a female context. All women can create themselves as a Presadera. It is not the idea a female is a title describing sex of a women which keeps her from being a President it is the criminal law Perjury. The world has picked the easier crime of discrimination to enforce, meanwhile in America it is still the ability to search for the more perfect union which allows by perfect form of legislation of light as law the cause of grievance to be spoken and written down for basis of assembly before congress. It is not a 1st Amendment right or what is often said to be inside and outside America free speech. This is a legal grievance and is to carry a burden of proof that speech is by fact held free by an action or limitation and has no cost by the person speaking. When an officer of politics makes such claim, officer of the practice of law, or even the common man or women by law, United State constitutional right - law a common defense toward the general welfare once requested must be given. In basic this is the same treatment a accused has to receive evidence that has been gathered against them. A past establishment of justice as legal precedent of law which is wright “ Right ” not to be held as one side during prosecution of criminal justice by form of law the world practices. Including and not limiting Australia.

 Hmmmm, lets see.   “Russia collusion”    The claim by the FBI and the intel community that Hunter’s Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation.”     The Jesse Gusset scandal, where the fake news media fell all over each other claiming that poor Jussie was the victim of MAGA supporter racism and violence.       The claim by the fake news press that Nick Sandmann’s smile was proof of his inherent racism.    Mr Sandmann won his slander suite against the fake news press for that one.   The blanket condemnation of Kylie Rittenhouse by the leftist media who claimed that he was a right wing extremist who was guilty of murder.     Kylie is now suing the crooked and hardly impartial left obsessed media for slander too, and I am sure he will win.       Then there was the vicious attack by the fake news press on Donald Trump when he correctly named the Wuhan lab as the source of the COVID-19 outbreak.     9 months later this same bunch of feeble minded activists masquerading as journalists had to eat some very unpalatable crow, when it became so obvious that the Wuhan lab was indeed the source of the outbreak   Continuing to deny self evident reality just to sneer at Trump was making them all look like the id-iots they are.     Even today, as the evidence that Biden is probably the most corrupt President in US history, the fake news media just whistles and looks the other way.    The reason?  They are all scratching each others backs because they are all part of “the swamp”.

All this writing means zero towards any claim of improvements to United States Constitutional right. This order is not clear!  Write the corrections which compel you as issue with American United States Constitutional Right, file grievance hear with us in our search, and write with it the changes you best feel can be made to improve the state of the union by Article. The men of President are proven as incompetent to be President of the United States of America, they are not by United States Constitutional Right ever to be charged as criminals till after impeachment. It is a relief of command. It is a honor awarded or given to any man  trying to be the one President of the many United States of America. We the men of America would be impeached first. Your reason for not addressing contribution to this tribunal correctly is not acceptable, start a new forum yourself or I will seek that you be banned from this one. I would hope that the creator of this forum would 2nd this motion, with MayCaesar to 3rd. Otherwise I will resign and take leave as this work here is pointless and only talk created to cause harm and not achievement of American United States Constitution Civil right.

I would hope we are working on a dead line......If more time is need or if a effort is only a draft this is a test of United States Constitutional validity between us not a vote for ratification of proposal.

John_C_87

@Openminded @JulesKorngold @MayCaesar
A Yea or Nay is usually required here.
Are we working on a dead line? Thursday untill 12:00 AM?

jack

Openminded said:

It seems that many Americans believe their first amendment right allows them to freely and recklessly express themselves.

Hello O:

I don't agree that flexing your 1st Amendment rights, is reckless at all..  In fact, leaving your rights to wither on the vine is the reckless behavior here..

excon

John_C_87

@jack

I don't agree that flexing your 1st Amendment rights, is reckless at all..  

What is our United States Constitution 1st Amendment Right? It sounds as though you somehow interpret that the 1st Amendment has given the ability to break United States of truth which assemble one right of the people for the people making it multiple rights. What is our United 1st Amendment Right? What right is described in all of that self-evident truth that is written from beginning to end in the 1st Amendment?

In fact, leaving your rights to wither on the vine is the reckless behavior here.

The evidence in America jack is no one Write United States Constitutional Right, no one ratifies new United States Constitutional Rights, no one serves, protects, and defends United States Constitutional right. The last constitutional ratification was performed in 1992 and it was not a United States Constitutional right which was ratified as part of the American Constitution.

All the Constitutional Amendments - Summaries, Changes & Significance | HISTORY

Amendment XXVII

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2.

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."        <---------------- See this.....What is approproiate legilsation it is not in writng as Section, as part of whole truth in Article Amendment  RLKV...What is the Right of a citizen 18 years of age. This has been ratified in quite a few Articles of Amendment and if correctly legilsated as a United State Consitutional Right would be only need to be listed once as a section of truths as real United State with established justice.  

This is the people and the power of vote saying that criminal law should be an assigned a power to  by congress to oversee United States Constitutional Right. even though the members of Congress cannot write United States Constitutional Right by lack of experience. This is as fullish as saying a women has a limited right to vote in the 19th Amendment as long as it isn't really illegal and we didn't understand the crime. Like it does. A lot of this can go simple by addressing the principles of women as held equal by Presadera in Article II Section not yet known.

theinfectedmaster

Argument Topic: Absolutely not.

Nah I think the first amendment is fine the way it is. I feel like freedom of speech is important, especially so people don't get constant fears of being arrested all of the time. I feel like it's important to that we not ban hate speech because otherwise the government could ban speech that isn't actually hate speech, plus I think that's an attack on free speech.

John_C_87

@theinfectedmaster

The 1st Amendment isn't the United States Constitutional right which gives us the right of grievance expression... lol as funny as that sounds it comes from elsewhere in the American Untied States Constitution directly. A secret is the lawyers just think is sound cooler when the say Freedom of speech and well you can't argue that it does like the coolest thing to say to a jury. There is a serious issue though council must share how freedom of speech has no cost once a court trial has been ruled on, it is United States Constitutional law. It is not protected by lawyer privilege a United States Constitutional right has been broken by possible plagiarism. Their client must have told the lawyer how no cost to the people had been transferred, else it is possible legal malpractice of law if a harm is somehow connected then proven by the mistake.

John_C_87

@theinfectedmaster

Nah I think the first amendment is fine the way it is. I feel like freedom of speech is important, especially so people don't get constant fears of being arrested all of the time. I feel like it's important to that we not ban hate speech because otherwise the government could ban speech that isn't actually hate speech, plus I think that's an attack on free speech.

People fear arrest due to not knowing all the laws that might be held against them in a court law. People fear arrest when there are only criminal crimes written as law left to judge them by. It is the loss of civil liberty; our liberty is one truth as my suggestion which creates a lax in connection to established justice. Let me walk you through this. You think the 1st Amendment is perfect in its connection to established justice just the way it is? Yea? Nay? 

John_C_87

Argument Topic: Sorry I was late...

1st Amendment

Section I

By law of nature and Declaration of Independence liberty comes at cost of freedom to all people, hiding a cost for the people, of what is without any liberty of the people, for the people, cannot be law made by Congress we are free in our exercise to listen and understand.

Section II
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.

Bogan

Hands up!    If you believe in gun control.

John_C_87

@Bogan

Ah.......The united states Constitutional Right is a form of gun control the issue is no one wanted to enforce the American Constitutional right as law because it describe a women as President as a crime. It also meant that all women would need to be held as created equal by their creator as a Declaration of Independence.

Hands up!    If you believe in gun control.

It is by fact Hands up!
If you do not believe in United States Consitutional Right as Gun Control.

John_C_87

1st Amendment 

Section I

By law of nature and Declaration of Independence liberty comes at cost of freedom to all people, hiding a cost for the people, of what is without any liberty of the people, for the people, cannot be law made by Congress we are free in our exercise to listen and understand.

Section II
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.

Am I the only one in this debate who has made a United States Constitutional Amendment to the 1st Amendment to be tested for ratification by public debate?

 You ladies and gentlemen come up with criminal laws all the time.