The First Amendment

[Revoltingest]

States are not free to make laws that restrict rights granted under the US Constitution.

There is a complexity to that.
It applies only if SCOTUS has ruled that the particular
right has been "incorporated". Not all rights are.

incorporation doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Revoltingest]

I meant legislation that gives takes away rights.

I believe that this adjustment makes your post clearer.

 

[Estro Felino]

I believe that this adjustment makes your post clearer.

I am sorry...I will repeat it.
I love constitutions which give away rights as if they were confetti.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am sorry...I will repeat it.
I love constitutions which give away rights as if they were confetti.

In English, "give away" often means to provide without cost.
When losing a right, "take away", is more appropriate.

 

[Estro Felino]

In English, "give away" often means to provide without cost.
When losing a right, "take away", is more appropriate.

I don't want to take away anyone's right.
So the term is not appropriate in this context.
I want to give people rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't want to take away anyone's right.
So the term is not appropriate in this context.
I want to give people rights.

OK.

 

[wellwisher]

I would like to understand what the First Amendment is really about.
What it entails. What its limits are.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.


Honestly, it sounds like paradoxical to me. It says that the Congress (the legislative power) cannot limit anyone's freedom of speech and freedom of press.
What about privates?
Can private citizens do that? Can private citizens prevent other private citizens from speaking freely?


Why does it sound paradoxical to me? Because if the Supreme Authority of your country, the State, guarantees you a right, automatically all the other entities, private or public, should guarantee you the same exact right.
Thank you in advance.

The first Amendment places all the restrictions on Big Government. The paradox you see is connected to Big Government over stepping restrictions implied by the first Amendment, and not being put back into its place. It makes what was clear cut, look like fuzzy dice, thereby making the first Amendment ambiguous.

The censorship by Big Government with Twitter and other Social media companies, was unconstitutional and we needed to set an example with those tyrants. Since nothing happened, now people assume this is the new norm. The new transgender religion, should not be institutionalized by Government. I am not saying people, as free citizens do not have the right to their belief, just that Government needs to butt out and not force a religion.

Before the Jan 6 demonstrations, Big Government under the Swamp, did not allow the citizens to air grievences about the legitimacy of the election. This is also where Big Government violated first Amendment rights. There should have been a formal inquiry by the Government, instead of suppressing information, and the Government taking a side for one political party. This was also a first amendment violation that has gone unpunished. It led to the citizen feeling they needed to take this into their own hands, due to the Swamp controlled Government's violation of their first Amendment rights.

What was the Swamp hiding, that they felt it necessary to avoid an internal investigation to address grievances? We learned later about forced social media censorship and other first Amendment violations. They now even made it crime for a private citizen and ex president to have an opinion that exposes their crimes.

The Mueller investigation was an internal investigation to address serious concerns about Russian Collusion, even though it was a conspiracy theory. There was nothing of the sort for the serious concern of election tampering, such as suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop, that was known to be legitimate. Heads need to roll or else they will make the clear cut even more fuzzy and take away other liberties, such as introduce a rigged injustice system to violate the right to a fair trial.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The first Amendment places all the restrictions on Big Government. The paradox you see is connected to Big Government over stepping restrictions implied by the first Amendment, and not being put back into its place. It makes what was clear cut, look like fuzzy dice, thereby making the first Amendment ambiguous.

The censorship by Big Government with Twitter and other Social media companies, was unconstitutional and we needed to set an example with those tyrants. Since nothing happened, now people assume this is the new norm. The new transgender religion, should not be institutionalized by Government. I am not saying people, as free citizens do not have the right to their belief, just that Government needs to butt out and not force a religion.

Before the Jan 6 demonstrations, Big Government under the Swamp, did not allow the citizens to air grievences about the legitimacy of the election. This is also where Big Government violated first Amendment rights. There should have been a formal inquiry by the Government, instead of suppressing information, and the Government taking a side for one political party. This was also a first amendment violation that has gone unpunished. It led to the citizen feeling they needed to take this into their own hands, due to the Swamp controlled Government's violation of their first Amendment rights.

What was the Swamp hiding, that they felt it necessary to avoid an internal investigation to address grievances? We learned later about forced social media censorship and other first Amendment violations. They now even made it crime for a private citizen and ex president to have an opinion that exposes their crimes.

The Mueller investigation was an internal investigation to address serious concerns about Russian Collusion, even though it was a conspiracy theory. There was nothing of the sort for the serious concern of election tampering, such as suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop, that was known to be legitimate. Heads need to roll or else they will make the clear cut even more fuzzy and take away other liberties, such as introduce a rigged injustice system to violate the right to a fair trial.

Be nice if you provided actual evidence for any of these claims. What social media sources were shut down by the Federal government over their content for instance.

 

[Estro Felino]

What was the Swamp hiding, that they felt it necessary to avoid an internal investigation to address grievances? We learned later about forced social media censorship and other first Amendment violations. They now even made it crime for a private citizen and ex president to have an opinion that exposes their crimes.

The Mueller investigation was an internal investigation to address serious concerns about Russian Collusion, even though it was a conspiracy theory. There was nothing of the sort for the serious concern of election tampering, such as suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop, that was known to be legitimate. Heads need to roll or else they will make the clear cut even more fuzzy and take away other liberties, such as introduce a rigged injustice system to violate the right to a fair trial.

Voltaire used to say: I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to death so you will always have the right to say it.

It seems to me that the new imperative has become: I don't agree with what you say and I will fight to death to prevent you from saying it.