![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I am currently in the process of rewriting and expanding the article Freedom of speech in the United States in my sandbox. As it stands right now, the article is entirely inadequate, as it fails to discuss freedom of speech post-Alien and Sedition Act. I've just noticed, however, that a substantial portion of this article ( this section) is essentially exactly what I was planning to add (at least in part) to the Freedom of speech in the United States article. While I think more can and should be discussed in regard to freedom of speech, my question now is whether the Freedom of speech in the United States article is necessary at all. If so, and I think it probably is, as the long "freedom of speech" section of this article disrupts the flow of the article substantially, would anyone be opposed to me (1) moving most of the text of that section to the Freedom of speech in the United States article and (2) summarizing the section in this article in a few paragraphs, leaving a link in place to the other article? - Jersyko· talk 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I realize that this has been discussed previously, so forgive me for coming to the discussion late, but this section of the article reads like an originalist or constructionist polemic. The section attributes the scope the First Amendment's protection entirely to stare decisis, implying that the expansiveness (or lack thereof) of the First Amendment's protection is entirely a product of the judiciary's reading of the Amendment. It completely fails to discuss other possibilities in what amounts to an argument that the Supreme Court (read "Activist Judges") has "revised" and "rewritten" the First Amendment. I see that the section was added long after this article obtained featured status. I think it should be removed, but would like to hear what other editors think before taking any action. - Jersyko· talk 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have read the entire section, and it seems to be off topic. The section as it exists now is a discussion about the nature of constitutional law, using the first amendment as an example. That would be more relevant to a page regarding, say, debates of constitutional law. Since the "virtual first amendment" does appear to be relevant I am moving the section down to the page (it should not be the first supporting paragraph) and titling it "Current Legal Interpretations" BarkingDoc 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Disagree completely. Section is thoroughly relevant, not off-topic, thoroughly on-topic, absent any bias whatsoever, simply explaining what is currently the case in constitutional interpretation to those who are not familiar with it. It is also extremely useful in understanding subsequent Supreme Court opinions which counteract the literal text of the amendment. User:68.209.177.178
Did respond to concern, and this was discussed thoroughly many months ago. A better option would be adding commentary in the section. If other possibilities should be discussed, discuss them in the body of the article, the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, introduce people to information that they don't have, let's let the Chinese do the censorship and the Americans allow free speech! Don't see any need to move lower, logical where it is. User:68.209.177.178
I would like to suggest some further concrete objections to the "virtual text" section of the article.
The best way to describe precedents is the traditional way: as precedents, not as unofficial parts of the text of the constitution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.186.239 ( talk • contribs) .
Comments to the above follow:
Actually, those who understand how stare decisis works, i.e., those in the legal system, understand how literal text can be, through interpretation, transformed into something almost completely different. There is much literature on this (some of which has been cited in the "Meaning of the first amendment" section), so this particular comment to the contrary must be seen as unsupported opinion without further evidence.
It isn't misleading at all. To regulate speech is to abridge it. And yes, the words "freedom of speech" are completely inconsistent with speech regulation.
By "relying on other things as well", the Supreme Court creates a virtual text, because it does not solely rely on the literal text of the First Amendment.
The best way to describe precedents is the traditional way: as precedents, not as unofficial parts of the text of the constitution.
If one reads the book cited in the article, WOULD THE REAL FIRST AMENDMENT PLEASE STAND UP?, one would be able to see exactly how the Supreme Court opinions function this way, and why a Cornell University law professor can write an article called "Flowcharting the First Amendment", and the flow chart has nothing to do with the First Amendment as it is written in the Constitution.
The article simply states reality as it exists, and is therefore, almost by definition, neutral. If you disagree with this, you are free to edit the article to remove what you see as "bias". Simply removing the article due to your opinion without putting in the necessary effort of clarification is intellectual laziness, and deprives the entire world of being exposed to, at the very least, an alternative point of view. User:68.209.177.178
Actually, stated that "at the very least" this would be seen as an "alternative point of view". Such would occur for a person who saw a reality in terms of "points of view", and had never been exposed to this aspect of judicial reality. However, strictly speaking, it is not a "point of view" at all, but simply pointing at an aspect of reality which is critically important in understanding the First Amendment. For that reason, the topic should not be relegated to a link somewhere else, but belongs in the topic proper. User:68.209.177.178
OK, after looking back at the discussions immediately above as well as further up, it seems that
User:Cyferx,
66.108.186.239,
User:Emsworth,
User:JamesMLane,
User:DESiegel,
User:Barkingdoc,
User:Kenj0418,
User:BD2412, and myself all seem to agree that
this section needs to either be (1) substantially rewritten or (2) excised from this article. On the other hand,
User:Pythagoras,
User:Just The Facts, and various anons (who may or may not be Pythagoras and/or Just the Facts) have argued for inclusion of the passage.
The debate over the inclusion of the passage has gone on for months. Since consensus appears to be against its inclusion as is, I am removing the passage and including a "See also" link to
virtual first amendment, which is really where this information belongs. -
Jersyko·
talk
19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This was discussed many months ago, the item was substantially rewritten to conform to various concerns, and after being rewritten was posted with no negative comments for several months, and tens of thousands of readers read the article with no negative comment. However, a new user, Jersyko, and a couple of other like-minded people, decided to deprive these tens of thousands of people of being exposed to some critical facts regarding the actual meaning of the First Amendment, which is critically important in understanding that amendment, and in understanding why there are dozens, if not hundreds, of federal laws and regulations on the books which have abridged the freedom of speech, in direct contradiction to the literal text of the First Amendment. It is important to understand why this is the case, and this section does its part to convey that understanding. This user, Jersyko, was asked to rewrite the supposedly problematic section to remove any concerns he had. Rather than doing this, he simply kept removing the text itself, a far easier task than the more difficult task of editing. When this failed, he asked to have the article "protected" (i.e deprive hundreds of possible authors of the ability to enhance and/or corrected text). So his modus operandi is quite clear: remove text from this fantastic resource which does not conform to his particular sensibilities, and also prevent other people from posting text on Wikipedia which does not conform to his particular sensibilities. Is this the Wikipedia way? I doubt it. User:68.209.177.178
The central error of the censoring contingent is the erroneous contention that to explain the role of "stare decisis" in Supreme Court interpretation is a "small minority view", or even a "view" at all. It is not a "view."...it is a fact! And an important one . . . does it really need to be said that the test of truth is not majority vote, but an examination of facts. For good reason. In the particular case, we have only received the opinions of .0001 percent of the readers of the article, in all likelihood. But even if 51% of the readers wanted to exclude facts which are demonstrably true (and certainly on point) from an article, this does not mean they have the right to deprive the other 49%, as well as the untold thousands who, having been exposed to the material, would fall into either camp based on what they've read. The real answer is to re-edit the article if bias is in place. Incidentally, the length of the article was necessary from the standpoint of establishing the validity of the concept, yet one could argue that given the replies here, the length was not nearly enough. User:68.209.177.178
It has been claimed that the censored section(removed with the cooperation of Wikipedia editors) is "biased". Let us examine this section closely to see if in fact it displays the lack of "neutral point of view" claimed.
On its face, given the text of the First Amendment, it would appear that any law passed by Congress abridging the freedom of speech or of the press would be unconstitutional. However, this does not consider the role of the doctrine of stare decisis, in which judges consider previous decisions they (and other courts) have rendered to be binding precedent, decisions to be followed as if they were themselves laws. This is extremely significant. In his law review article "Return to Philadelphia" (1 Cooley Law Review 1, 35-6), Thomas Brennan referred to this phenomenon as creating an "empirical Constitution":
There are those who hold that the American Constitution is not a written law at all, but is rather the sum total of all those customs, traditions, institutions and practices which have grown up over the years, and which influence or control the workings of our national government. In this view, the Constitution is considered coextensive with the governing Establishment. It is the way things are. It is the distribution of power, as it actually exists and is effectively exercised in modern American society. This might be termed the empirical constitution. . . .
Any impartial observer would have to conclude that the previous two paragraphs are utterly impartial. Let us continue.
This phenomenon has been discussed in several books, most notably Edward Corwin's The Constitution And What It Means Today (published by Princeton, ISBN 0691027587). But it is not only academics who have recognized the phenomenon. Members of the Supreme Court have on occasion acknowledged that the Court has revised/amended the Constitution by construction. For example, in 1969, Judges Black and Douglas stated in their concurrence in Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1969) that
Many years ago this Court, without the necessity of an amendment pursuant to Article V, decided that 'all crimes' did not mean 'all crimes,' but meant only 'all serious crimes.' Today three members of the Court would judicially amend that judicial amendment and substitute the phrase 'all crimes in which punishment for more than six months is authorized.' This definition of 'serious' would be enacted even though those members themselves recognize that imprisonment for less than six months may still have serious consequences. This decision is reached by weighing the advantages to the defendant against the administrative inconvenience to the State inherent in a jury trial and magically concluding that the scale tips at six months' imprisonment. Such constitutional adjudication, whether framed in terms of 'fundamental fairness,' 'balancing,' or 'shocking the conscience,' amounts in every case to little more than judicial mutilation of our written Constitution.
This is also impartial. This is entirely consistent with the Wikipedia policy: "assert facts, including facts about opinions". As a direct quote, this is inherently non-biased. The claim that this is a "libertarian polemic" is obviously disproven by the fact that this quote comes from the two most "liberal" (i.e. anti-libertarian) justices of the Supreme Court, Black and Douglas, who also happened to be (for the most part) defenders of the Constitution as written.
While in the Baldwin case judges Black and Douglas were addressing the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment has received the same treatment. Consequently, the literal text of the First Amendment has been functionally revised through the doctrine of stare decisis, as the Court has also acknowledged. For example, in Denver v. FCC (1996), [1], the Court stated that "this Court, in different contexts, has consistently held that the Government may directly regulate speech . . .", even though the text of the 1791 First Amendment states clearly that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .".
Another direct quote. Where is the bias here?
This phenomenon of functionally revising literal text has also been referred to as creating a "virtual First Amendment".
Another fact.
But if the literal text of the First Amendment is no longer used by the Supreme Court in rendering its decisions, what is? The text below is a brief representation of the virtual text used by the Supreme Court in its First Amendment jurisprudence over the years, from Thomas Ladanyi's book The 1987 Constitution .
Text of the Virtual First Amendment (heavily abridged)
Again, a direct quote.
The entire text of Ladanyi's virtual First Amendment, as well as a reproduction of a flow chart prepared by a Cornell University law professor outlining the Supreme Court's functional revisions to the First Amendment, is contained in Barry Krusch's online book, Would The Real First Amendment Please Stand Up?
Another group of facts. So, while this text was removed from Wikipedia, on the claim that this was merely "biased opinion", a neutral observer would have to conclude that this is simply a recitation of facts. Accordingly, the passage ought to be reinstated.
User:Pythagoras has added a rewritten section about the virtual first amendment into this article again, but is now claiming that since the rewritten section hasn't run the gamut of consensus and discussion, it is not violative of consensus to include the section in the article. The prior consensus is summarized here. My position is that the section (seen here), while possibly presented in a slightly more NPOV manner than the previous section, (1) still overemphasizes a minority viewpoint, giving it undue weight without any balance, (2) is self-referential at times, and (3) is still POV and OR. Any other comments? - Jersyko· talk 14:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I know a crank when I read one. There may be absence of consensus on the external link; but the several paragraphs will not do, and have been removed before. Septentrionalis 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the addition, seems to avoid the neutrality concerns in the previous version. User:MWeston
Actually, it is supposed to express a "neutral" point of view. The article as is has eliminated the "point of view" (if that is the correct term) that the meaning of the First Amendment could be "literal" (i.e. textual) or "virtual" (i.e. interpretive). It eliminates it entirely. Nothing neutral about that.
I removed the following because it seemed misplaced. Perhaps it belongs in an article about theories of the POV it's suggesting.
If someone thinks it belongs elsewhere in this article, feel free to work it in. Placed where it was, it came across as POV. Moulder 07:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
When the amendment was written, did the word "press" mean "printing press" only, or had the word already been abstracted to mean journalism and political opinion writing? Thomaso 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The constant vandalism to this page is harshing my mellow. Is it time for semi-protection again? -- lquilter 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"The First Amendment was one of the first guarantees of religious freedom: neither the English Bill of Rights, nor the French Declaration of Rights, contains an equivalent guarantee."
Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the French Declaration of the Rights of Man does contain a guarantee concerning religious freedom, however I'm not too sure how far this goes exactly without looking it up; personally, I think it's something open to interpretation, which would require some sort of analysis as to how the First Republic upheld it. Either way, I don't think that this is a statement we should present as fact without some evidence; maybe a restructured comment referring to similar guarantees in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (which, incidentally, is its correct title).
137.205.251.1 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about the basis for tax exemptions granted to religious institutions. Is this a consequence of the first amendment? What is the reasoning? Thanks -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we have missed an important area, namely compulsory speech, particularly as it interrelates with religion.
The following is the text that I inserted in the Frank Murphy article, which I think deserves some sort of consideration here:
Additionally, we have actions which impinge on the free exercise of religion. I recognize that Murphy was on the dissenting end of this opinion, but in any event the court was ruling on the issue:
For your consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This section states that American freedom of the press is one of the most extensive in the world. However, according to Reporters without Borders, the US falls in the third-highest category of press freedom -- many developed nations are in the 1st or 2nd category & almost all developed nations are in the top 3. This implies that the US is actually more restrictive in press freedoms than most developed nations. K.d.stauffer ( talk) 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the above conclusion. Reporters without Borders' ranking is dubious. For example, it ranks Canada as freer than the US. I know of at least two incidents in the past year in which writers, both newspaper columnists, were summoned before a "human rights commission". The offence was the "hate crime" of criticizing Islam. The commission has the power to fine the defendants. I'm not sure what else. But, of course, there is also the humiliation and Orwellian experience of having to explain one's motives for criticizing the religion. As a religion is a system of beliefs and ideas, it is bizarre that one should have to explain one's motives in criticizing or ridiculing ideas in a supposed free society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.114 ( talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it a little misleading to mention the Bill of Rights 1689 in the way that it is used now? As I understand it the Bill of Rights related mostly to Parliaments rights over the monarch and would therefore only be rights of the people at large by proxy. In the same way that saying that the Magna Carta gave the average peasant (the vast majority of the population) the right to trial by his peers, when it was in fact gave the feudal Barons the right to not be tried by "lesser people" (the Magistrates appointed by the King.) -- Tyrfing ( talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to raise that the Pruneyard Doctrine discussion in the "Libel, slander, and private action" section doesn't seem to hold a neutral point of view; it seems rather slanted in favor of the property owners. Specifically, it seems to take on a rhetorical tone, as if to begin a debate. I have not updated that section because I am not knowledgeable of the circumstances discussed in the section; can anyone comment?
Tvynr ( talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The correct citation is 249 U.S. 211, not 49 U.S. 211 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.231.2 ( talk) 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "The Supreme Court never ruled on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and even the leading critics of the law, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for the laws' unconstitutionality on the basis of the First Amendment, among other Constitutional provisions..."
The argument was not that the Sedition Acts violated the First Amendment, but Congress was not vested with any powers over speech or the press, i.e., Sedition Acts would been unconstitutional if there had been no First Amendment. The purpose of the First Amendment was a declaration that no such power over the press or speech had been delegated and not a restraint of an existing power belonging to Congress. LawPro ( talk) 07:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Temporarily commented this section:
It seems to be missing quotes, making it appear as if Wikipedia is editorializing. Could some kind soul read through the material and add quotes at the appropriate places? Regrettably, I don't have the time. 82.95.254.249 ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state." This sentence in the intro is uncited, and I can't seem to find anything in the article on the 14th amendment or due process on it. Perhaps it should have a citation for whatever decision it's referring to? I'd certainly find it helpful, at least :) -- bd_ ( talk) 02:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Are the any relevant post-Internet updates? Seems like something people (like me) will wonder. Noloop ( talk) 16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The meaning of "the press" is a bit disputed. Most scholars, I think, agree it refers to the printing press. So freedom of speech and freedom of the press together encompass freedom of expression. When I press the "Submit" button below, I am exercising my freedom of press. The news media, however, like to think it confers special rights on them, and the 1st Amendment is often described as singling out the journalism industry for special rights. That's seems pretty silly to me, if you think about the context: the Bill of Rights specified fundamental individual rights.
Anyway, we need to be careful about phrases like "In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Court ruled that the First Amendment did not grant a member of the press the right to refuse a subpoena from a grand jury." Regardless of whether you agree with my preferred interpretation, we shouldn't imply one interpretation is right. I propose this article avoid the phrase "press" except when citing the 1st Amendment. If we want to refer to journalism, we should say that rather than "the press." I edited the above sentence, but it was reverted for reasons I don't understand. The phrase "member of the press" obviously uses "press" to mean the journalism industry. Noloop ( talk) 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Guantanamo captive Ali al-Bahlul's military defense attorneys filed a fifty page appeal of his sentence on first amendment grounds: "Mr. al Bahlul is not a sympathetic defendant. He embraces an ideology that glorifies violence, justifies terrorism and opposes constitutional democracy. As offensive as it may be, [Bahlul's film work] is speech that falls within the core protections of the First Amendment, which forbids the prosecution of `the thoughts, the beliefs, the ideals of the accused."
So, does this appeal merit coverage in this article?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Surely an exemption section is required detailing where the First Amendment doesn't apply, e.g. certain obscene/pornographic material (Miller test), matters of national security, and supporting the boycott of Israel. The Patriot Act reduction on civil liberties would also affect the freedoms afforded by the First Amendment, should this be mentioned here? Zarcadia ( talk) 09:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Should the implications of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission be included under the heading "Political Speech"? Specifically, I'm referring to the majority opinion's conclusion that corporations and unions are entities protected by the 1st Amendment and have a Constitutional right to political speech. PenoftheAuthor ( talk) 18:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In my lifetime, the freedom to assemble and petition our government for a redress of grievances has created the largest political changes. From the civil rights movement, to the anti-Vietnam war movement, to the tea party movement, Americans have manged to alter the national course of events by exercising this political right and making the government take notice when it would rather not. Freedom of speech, the freedom to individual expression, and freedom to peaceably assemble and put political clout [redress of grievances] to that free speech are equally important. It is missing in the introduction and, I believe, it should be given just as much importance as each other part. kmh ( talk) 16:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In Lane v. Owens (03-B-1544, United States District Court, District of Colorado), the First Amendment was used to successfully argue that school children could not be compelled by law to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.231.179 ( talk) 07:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There really needs to be a section on how somehow the government thinks it's a-ok (when actually it's unconstitutional) to prohibit religions and churches from endorsing certain political candidates. I came here looking for information on that and found none much to my dismay. -- PaladinWriter ( talk) 10:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Should'nt there be an addition or a change in the First Amendment that includes racial profiling. For so long African Americans have been racial profiled. Now we are back at this same place just with a different Race. I don't believe this is fair that someone has to go through life worring about whether they will be profiled because of the color of their skin, or they way they dress, their hair, or even the music they like. There should be a law that premits this from happening.
Myshine4real ( talk) 03:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Ms. Harris
In the lead paragraph, an un-footnoted sentence notes twentieth century decisions that the First Amendment restricts more than just Congress. I think there should be an expanded mention of how the Fourteenth Amendment modifies the First Amendment.
Barring that, I believe there should be a sub-headline called something like, Effect of the Fourteenth Amendment on the First at the major place where the Fourteenth is mentioned in the text.
Barring that, the lead section sentence on the Fourteenth should be footnoted. (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 ( talk) 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, from one having no formal education in constitutional law.
The first amendment explicitly protects the right "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Why then do I have scores of images in my mind of peaceful demonstrations, with an obvious political intent, doing no harm to either public property or private persons, being violently broken up by police? They announce it to be an "unlawful assembly" over the megaphone, and then break it up.
If this were but a few isolated events taken place over the years then I would not bother bringing it up. But it really isn't; you see it every few weeks on the news, and the reporters reporting the event don't even bother to remind the viewer that what they are seeing is the repression of an expressly protected constitutional right. Can someone explain this to me?
Really, I am not trying to grandstand here, I am honestly curious. I came to this article looking for answers and could find none. Could someone please add to this article, or create a new article, explaining to me why the routine breaking up, often violently, of otherwise peaceful assemblies is such a common and, as far as I can tell, accepted occurrence in America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.120.74 ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just introduced a citation of this book into the Separation of church and state in the United States article. Separately from the point for which I cited it, the book describes some wheeling and dealing re the First Amendment between John Leland and James Madison. The book says that Leland had planned a campaign against ratification of the constitution, that as a powerful Baptist he would probably have been able to prevent ratification by Virginia, and that without ratification by Virginia the constitution would have failed. However, Madison and Leland cut a deal for Leland to withdraw as an antiratification candidate and instead work to convince Baptists to vote for ratification in exchange for Madison introducing an amendment in the first Congress with the wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Serious scholars probably know the story, but it was new to me and was interesting to learn. I thought that it might deserve a mention here, but I didn't want to make a ham-fisted edit of the Background section and plunk it in. Instead, I've mentioned it here thinking that one of the regular editors of this article might put it in a bit more artfully than I would have. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Under the Freedom of Speech section, the article states that, "The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century". I think that this statement is wrong. In Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877), the Supreme Court upheld the Comstock Act against a First Amendment challenge (among other things). While it is true that Jackson also deals with Enumerated Powers and Fourth Amendment issues, the freedom of speech issue is addressed and settled:
So I think that, unless we want to be picky about distinguising freedom of speech from freedom of press, at least one pre-1900 Supreme Court case concerned the constitutionality of a federal law on free speech grounds.
Accordingly, I think the article should be amended, but as an anonymous user lack the means to do this.
128.12.32.48 ( talk) 08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Neither the phrase nor the concept of "separation of church and state" can be found in the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of church and state" has been taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The letter was unrelated to constitutional documents authored by Jefferson. Wikipedia has inserted this phrase into the definition of the First Amendment to insinuate that this phrase or its concept exists within the First Amendment itself. It does not, and should be removed. Duffbash ( talk) 19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The U.S. Constitution does not ban nor promote any laws, be it federal or state, to ban speech in the public. However, there are laws in existence to prevent libel, slander, defamation of ones' character and verbal hate crimes (" hate speech").
Five known public arenas where the freedom of speech does not completely apply in:
Something about the phrasing in the establishment clause section lacks NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.221.5 ( talk) 08:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This article makes out conservatives to be strict interpretationalists, when this is not always the case. 146.129.250.98 ( talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
In the section describing the liberal view of freedom or religion, in a place where it seems the letter by the founding father Jefferson belongs, there is an unrelated quote by President and actor Reagan. Was this article on freedom censored? Skintigh ( talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), the Supreme Court held that a statutory “disturbing the peace” conviction for a peaceable demonstration containing speech that may potentially incite violence infringed on a demonstrator’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. The court ruled that the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly could not be denied because of hostility to their assertion or exercise, noting that first amendment protections are most necessary when their exercise invites dispute, induces unrest, and stirs people to anger.
In Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), the Supreme Court held that the arrests and convictions of 187 marchers were an attempt by South Carolina to “make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views” where the marchers’ actions were an exercise of First Amendment rights “in their most pristine and classic form.” The Court described the common law crime of breach of the peace “not susceptible of exact definition.” In Edwards, Justice Clark dissented, arguing that the City Manager’s action may have averted a major catastrophe because of the “almost spontaneous combustion in some Southern communities in such a situation.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConLawCookies ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain why this passes WP:PRIMARY ? ( W090584 ( talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC))
Has this article been semi-protected? The history log says a hidden protection tag was added to the article, but there's no log entry indicating that the article was actually semi-protected. SMP0328. ( talk) 04:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny." This is nonsense opinion. The first amendment of the Constitution was written to protect religious tyranny from creeping in and having merit in the government just as well. This needs to be corrected. One of the main reasons our founding fathers fled England was to break away from the religious enforcement of the state church of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBM72 ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to liberals, the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state
Please remove according to liberals. Liberals are not an established group with established thoughts or ideals. Many people believe or have been educated based upon the concept of separation of church and state, liberalism is not a qualifier for this belief.
At least ask for a citation with regards to how liberals are responsible for this idea. 216.138.118.154 ( talk) 18:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The photo of the Bill of Rights used with this article is not the final Bill of Rights approved by Congress and the states. It has 12 articles, not 10. Not knowing the history of the document well, I don't know if that is important. Three.erdad ( talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Ladd Brubaker
I would like to add, or at least confirm, that the first amendment was a primary and formal reference to freedom. I am looking for the quote and will try to provide but cannot find: "Take from me all my liberties, but allow me the freedom of speech and I shall win them all back." or something to that effect.
Looking for help. Jambay ( talk) 06:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
All of which belongs in "Background" section. Still trying to find the "original intent" of the first amendment. Jambay ( talk) 06:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The Establishment Clause's meaning has been a point of contention among different groups and its meaning has been interpreted differently at different times in American history. [1] One view is that the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state, [2] [3] although this term did not appear in the First Amendment but in a personal letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to religious dissenters in Connecticut. [1] Another view is that the Establishment Clause solely prevents the government from establishing a state church, not from publicly acknowledging God. [4] [2]
The words "separation of church and state" are actually not in the First Amendment. They appear instead in a letter written in 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson to dissenters in Connecticut. The church leaders were worried that government might someday tell them how, where, and when to worship God. Jefferson said not to worry because the First Amendment was like a very tall wall and it would do a good job protecting churches from government interference. The understanding of what Jefferson meant by "separation of church and state" changed over the long years that followed.
Conservative activists point out that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution-and they're right. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Connecticut Baptists in which he praised the First Amendment's "wall separating church and state." The Supreme Court quoted that letter in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Conservative scholars have long argued that the "wall" was mostly intended to block the creation of official state religions-not to completely close the door between government and religious life.
This section is, as its sources make clear, a compilation of opinions available on the web. Even if they were the best websites available, this has no place in our article.
But they are not even the best the web has to offer. Most of them are ill-informed; the point that drives me to remove the section entirely is the claim that Jefferson's letter was written to "church leaders" in Connecticut. It was written to a congregation of Baptists; in the early nineteenth century, the Connecticut had an established church, and it was Congregationalist; the State Government funded the Congregationalist sectarian institution, Yale, out of taxes paid by Baptists and Anglicans, which was constitutional - in 1806.
Please do not restore this; if we must have such a section, let us find what secondary sources have to say about this debate. But why should we have one at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Conservatives claim that liberals misinterpret the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. They point to the opinion written for the Supreme Court by Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendement means at least this: neither a state nor a Federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another." The establishment clause, conservatives insist, precludes the national state from promoting any religious denomination but does not prohibit state governments and local communitites from developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals.
Government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions. This has been, and is, the liberal or "separationist" reading of the Establishment Clause.
User:Pmanderson (Septentrionalis), you must gain consensus before removing information from the article. You have been reverted by two different users. I am not sure what the problem is. I quoted the reference published by the Yale University Press above that delineates the conservative viewpoint. Moreover, I also provided the quote from the other reference which elucidates the liberal opinion on the subject. I would encourage you to read WP:CENSOR. We cannot remove information from the article simply because we do not like it; rather, verifiable information that is buttressed by reliable sources is the standard. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Half of this is invention: what Pew asked was "is the United States a Christian nation?" The conclusion that this means agreement that the Federal Government can foster religion is Original Research, not supported by the sources, for the excellent reason that it is perfectly possible to believe that the US is a nation substantially made up of Christians, and that nevertheless religion does not require public support - and does not need it.
Please note that the POV here rests in having this section at all, not whether it favors the view it calls "liberal" or the view it calls "conservative". The view that there is a war between two monolithic armies is a fringe view, held only on the extreme left and the extreme right; this random collection of unascribed talking points is pointless: hire a blog. Is it a liberal view that the United States is not founded in the Christian religion? That a state-supported institution should teach about religion, but should not have any particular creed taught on its campus? That chaplains, both in the Armed Forces and in Congress, are injurious to republican government and to religion? Yet those are the views of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As for the substance, this is so much hot air. "Liberals believe" this; "conservatives believe" that. Who? Which liberals? Which conservatives? Any article which suggests that there is total agreement among liberals or conservatives on any points will be laughed at by anybody who knows any conservatives, and laughed at even harder by anybody who knows any liberals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
(also discussed in parent talk section)
Reason for cleanup = Section is very incomplete examination of topic & takes sources out of context. Section on "meaning" cannot be separated from SCOTUS rulings. Grade school textbook is used as a reference twice and is not a proper source for an encyclopedia article that involves political philosophy. Sources about cases decided by the Supreme Court, and thus the law, are taken out of context & misrepresented simply as the opinions of "liberals and secularists" (When "secularists" ARE finally mentioned in the quoted source attached to usage of the word, the position is a DIFFERENT position). While some sources quoted carefully avoid saying "rulings", they do say majority, which has the same effect. Other quotes in sources presented (and many others available) do indeed refer to actual decisions/rulings of SCOTUS. Section may also require 1> removal 2>change of title
As the section stands, it is sophomoric synthesis to advance a POV rather than to seriously address "meaning". -- JimWae ( talk) 05:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You state that "while some sources quoted carefully avoid saying "rulings", they do say majority, which has the same effect." This constitutes WP:SYNTH. Why not state what is being plainly said in the sources? I shall provide them here for you below. The reference titled Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum (ASCD) states:
Government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions. This has been, and is, the liberal or 'separationist' reading of the Establishment Clause. On the other end of the spectrum, many religious liberals and secularists view any government funding of religious groups and any government expression of religion, however indirect or nonsectarian, as a violation of conscience and a stepping stone to an unholy allaince of church and state.
The reference titled Does God make a difference? ( Oxford University Press) states:
I suggest that conservative justices tend to favor a weak reading of both the Free Exercise and Establishment clause, while liberals tend to favor strong readings. That is, conservative justices have been less concerned about the dangers of establishment and less concerned to protect free exercise rights, particularly of religious minorities. Liberals, by contrast, have been opposed to any possibility of a religious establishment and they have been relatively more concerned to protect the free exercise rights of minorities.
The reference titled Recasting Conservatism: Oakeshott, Strauss, and the Response to Postmodernism ( Yale University Press) states:
Conservatives claim that liberals misinterpret the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The establishment clause, conservatives insist, precludes the national state from promoting any religious denomination but does not prohibit state governments and local communities from developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals.
This information from each of these academic sources corroborates one another and is even reflected in less scholarly but informative web-based sources, such as Student News Daily and Belief Net (note: these sources are not currently qualifying any statements in the article). The article simply must state what the reliable sources presents, which is being done in the current revision of the article (see WP:V). The article, in the above section, does indeed discuss the Supreme Court with the sentence: "However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states." You are more than welcome to add referenced information to that section if this interests you. However, if you do so, keep in mind that you must present the information neutrally. For example, Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum (ASCD) states: "Dissenting voices on the Court (including the current Chief Justice) take what is sometiems called an "accomodationalist" view: the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from creating a national church of favoring one religion over another, but it does not prohibit general acknowledgement of religion by government (such as allowing nonsectarian prayers at school-sponsored events) or allowing religious groups to receive government funding on the same basis as secular groups (through vouchers for religious schools, for example)." I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings you might have had. With regards, Anupam Talk 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
If necessary, I shall supply sources for the situation of the Danbury Baptists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
On the chief substantive point at issue, it would be easy to accumulate sources which explain what was actually happening in 1802:
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I am currently in the process of rewriting and expanding the article Freedom of speech in the United States in my sandbox. As it stands right now, the article is entirely inadequate, as it fails to discuss freedom of speech post-Alien and Sedition Act. I've just noticed, however, that a substantial portion of this article ( this section) is essentially exactly what I was planning to add (at least in part) to the Freedom of speech in the United States article. While I think more can and should be discussed in regard to freedom of speech, my question now is whether the Freedom of speech in the United States article is necessary at all. If so, and I think it probably is, as the long "freedom of speech" section of this article disrupts the flow of the article substantially, would anyone be opposed to me (1) moving most of the text of that section to the Freedom of speech in the United States article and (2) summarizing the section in this article in a few paragraphs, leaving a link in place to the other article? - Jersyko· talk 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I realize that this has been discussed previously, so forgive me for coming to the discussion late, but this section of the article reads like an originalist or constructionist polemic. The section attributes the scope the First Amendment's protection entirely to stare decisis, implying that the expansiveness (or lack thereof) of the First Amendment's protection is entirely a product of the judiciary's reading of the Amendment. It completely fails to discuss other possibilities in what amounts to an argument that the Supreme Court (read "Activist Judges") has "revised" and "rewritten" the First Amendment. I see that the section was added long after this article obtained featured status. I think it should be removed, but would like to hear what other editors think before taking any action. - Jersyko· talk 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have read the entire section, and it seems to be off topic. The section as it exists now is a discussion about the nature of constitutional law, using the first amendment as an example. That would be more relevant to a page regarding, say, debates of constitutional law. Since the "virtual first amendment" does appear to be relevant I am moving the section down to the page (it should not be the first supporting paragraph) and titling it "Current Legal Interpretations" BarkingDoc 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Disagree completely. Section is thoroughly relevant, not off-topic, thoroughly on-topic, absent any bias whatsoever, simply explaining what is currently the case in constitutional interpretation to those who are not familiar with it. It is also extremely useful in understanding subsequent Supreme Court opinions which counteract the literal text of the amendment. User:68.209.177.178
Did respond to concern, and this was discussed thoroughly many months ago. A better option would be adding commentary in the section. If other possibilities should be discussed, discuss them in the body of the article, the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, introduce people to information that they don't have, let's let the Chinese do the censorship and the Americans allow free speech! Don't see any need to move lower, logical where it is. User:68.209.177.178
I would like to suggest some further concrete objections to the "virtual text" section of the article.
The best way to describe precedents is the traditional way: as precedents, not as unofficial parts of the text of the constitution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.186.239 ( talk • contribs) .
Comments to the above follow:
Actually, those who understand how stare decisis works, i.e., those in the legal system, understand how literal text can be, through interpretation, transformed into something almost completely different. There is much literature on this (some of which has been cited in the "Meaning of the first amendment" section), so this particular comment to the contrary must be seen as unsupported opinion without further evidence.
It isn't misleading at all. To regulate speech is to abridge it. And yes, the words "freedom of speech" are completely inconsistent with speech regulation.
By "relying on other things as well", the Supreme Court creates a virtual text, because it does not solely rely on the literal text of the First Amendment.
The best way to describe precedents is the traditional way: as precedents, not as unofficial parts of the text of the constitution.
If one reads the book cited in the article, WOULD THE REAL FIRST AMENDMENT PLEASE STAND UP?, one would be able to see exactly how the Supreme Court opinions function this way, and why a Cornell University law professor can write an article called "Flowcharting the First Amendment", and the flow chart has nothing to do with the First Amendment as it is written in the Constitution.
The article simply states reality as it exists, and is therefore, almost by definition, neutral. If you disagree with this, you are free to edit the article to remove what you see as "bias". Simply removing the article due to your opinion without putting in the necessary effort of clarification is intellectual laziness, and deprives the entire world of being exposed to, at the very least, an alternative point of view. User:68.209.177.178
Actually, stated that "at the very least" this would be seen as an "alternative point of view". Such would occur for a person who saw a reality in terms of "points of view", and had never been exposed to this aspect of judicial reality. However, strictly speaking, it is not a "point of view" at all, but simply pointing at an aspect of reality which is critically important in understanding the First Amendment. For that reason, the topic should not be relegated to a link somewhere else, but belongs in the topic proper. User:68.209.177.178
OK, after looking back at the discussions immediately above as well as further up, it seems that
User:Cyferx,
66.108.186.239,
User:Emsworth,
User:JamesMLane,
User:DESiegel,
User:Barkingdoc,
User:Kenj0418,
User:BD2412, and myself all seem to agree that
this section needs to either be (1) substantially rewritten or (2) excised from this article. On the other hand,
User:Pythagoras,
User:Just The Facts, and various anons (who may or may not be Pythagoras and/or Just the Facts) have argued for inclusion of the passage.
The debate over the inclusion of the passage has gone on for months. Since consensus appears to be against its inclusion as is, I am removing the passage and including a "See also" link to
virtual first amendment, which is really where this information belongs. -
Jersyko·
talk
19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This was discussed many months ago, the item was substantially rewritten to conform to various concerns, and after being rewritten was posted with no negative comments for several months, and tens of thousands of readers read the article with no negative comment. However, a new user, Jersyko, and a couple of other like-minded people, decided to deprive these tens of thousands of people of being exposed to some critical facts regarding the actual meaning of the First Amendment, which is critically important in understanding that amendment, and in understanding why there are dozens, if not hundreds, of federal laws and regulations on the books which have abridged the freedom of speech, in direct contradiction to the literal text of the First Amendment. It is important to understand why this is the case, and this section does its part to convey that understanding. This user, Jersyko, was asked to rewrite the supposedly problematic section to remove any concerns he had. Rather than doing this, he simply kept removing the text itself, a far easier task than the more difficult task of editing. When this failed, he asked to have the article "protected" (i.e deprive hundreds of possible authors of the ability to enhance and/or corrected text). So his modus operandi is quite clear: remove text from this fantastic resource which does not conform to his particular sensibilities, and also prevent other people from posting text on Wikipedia which does not conform to his particular sensibilities. Is this the Wikipedia way? I doubt it. User:68.209.177.178
The central error of the censoring contingent is the erroneous contention that to explain the role of "stare decisis" in Supreme Court interpretation is a "small minority view", or even a "view" at all. It is not a "view."...it is a fact! And an important one . . . does it really need to be said that the test of truth is not majority vote, but an examination of facts. For good reason. In the particular case, we have only received the opinions of .0001 percent of the readers of the article, in all likelihood. But even if 51% of the readers wanted to exclude facts which are demonstrably true (and certainly on point) from an article, this does not mean they have the right to deprive the other 49%, as well as the untold thousands who, having been exposed to the material, would fall into either camp based on what they've read. The real answer is to re-edit the article if bias is in place. Incidentally, the length of the article was necessary from the standpoint of establishing the validity of the concept, yet one could argue that given the replies here, the length was not nearly enough. User:68.209.177.178
It has been claimed that the censored section(removed with the cooperation of Wikipedia editors) is "biased". Let us examine this section closely to see if in fact it displays the lack of "neutral point of view" claimed.
On its face, given the text of the First Amendment, it would appear that any law passed by Congress abridging the freedom of speech or of the press would be unconstitutional. However, this does not consider the role of the doctrine of stare decisis, in which judges consider previous decisions they (and other courts) have rendered to be binding precedent, decisions to be followed as if they were themselves laws. This is extremely significant. In his law review article "Return to Philadelphia" (1 Cooley Law Review 1, 35-6), Thomas Brennan referred to this phenomenon as creating an "empirical Constitution":
There are those who hold that the American Constitution is not a written law at all, but is rather the sum total of all those customs, traditions, institutions and practices which have grown up over the years, and which influence or control the workings of our national government. In this view, the Constitution is considered coextensive with the governing Establishment. It is the way things are. It is the distribution of power, as it actually exists and is effectively exercised in modern American society. This might be termed the empirical constitution. . . .
Any impartial observer would have to conclude that the previous two paragraphs are utterly impartial. Let us continue.
This phenomenon has been discussed in several books, most notably Edward Corwin's The Constitution And What It Means Today (published by Princeton, ISBN 0691027587). But it is not only academics who have recognized the phenomenon. Members of the Supreme Court have on occasion acknowledged that the Court has revised/amended the Constitution by construction. For example, in 1969, Judges Black and Douglas stated in their concurrence in Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1969) that
Many years ago this Court, without the necessity of an amendment pursuant to Article V, decided that 'all crimes' did not mean 'all crimes,' but meant only 'all serious crimes.' Today three members of the Court would judicially amend that judicial amendment and substitute the phrase 'all crimes in which punishment for more than six months is authorized.' This definition of 'serious' would be enacted even though those members themselves recognize that imprisonment for less than six months may still have serious consequences. This decision is reached by weighing the advantages to the defendant against the administrative inconvenience to the State inherent in a jury trial and magically concluding that the scale tips at six months' imprisonment. Such constitutional adjudication, whether framed in terms of 'fundamental fairness,' 'balancing,' or 'shocking the conscience,' amounts in every case to little more than judicial mutilation of our written Constitution.
This is also impartial. This is entirely consistent with the Wikipedia policy: "assert facts, including facts about opinions". As a direct quote, this is inherently non-biased. The claim that this is a "libertarian polemic" is obviously disproven by the fact that this quote comes from the two most "liberal" (i.e. anti-libertarian) justices of the Supreme Court, Black and Douglas, who also happened to be (for the most part) defenders of the Constitution as written.
While in the Baldwin case judges Black and Douglas were addressing the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment has received the same treatment. Consequently, the literal text of the First Amendment has been functionally revised through the doctrine of stare decisis, as the Court has also acknowledged. For example, in Denver v. FCC (1996), [1], the Court stated that "this Court, in different contexts, has consistently held that the Government may directly regulate speech . . .", even though the text of the 1791 First Amendment states clearly that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .".
Another direct quote. Where is the bias here?
This phenomenon of functionally revising literal text has also been referred to as creating a "virtual First Amendment".
Another fact.
But if the literal text of the First Amendment is no longer used by the Supreme Court in rendering its decisions, what is? The text below is a brief representation of the virtual text used by the Supreme Court in its First Amendment jurisprudence over the years, from Thomas Ladanyi's book The 1987 Constitution .
Text of the Virtual First Amendment (heavily abridged)
Again, a direct quote.
The entire text of Ladanyi's virtual First Amendment, as well as a reproduction of a flow chart prepared by a Cornell University law professor outlining the Supreme Court's functional revisions to the First Amendment, is contained in Barry Krusch's online book, Would The Real First Amendment Please Stand Up?
Another group of facts. So, while this text was removed from Wikipedia, on the claim that this was merely "biased opinion", a neutral observer would have to conclude that this is simply a recitation of facts. Accordingly, the passage ought to be reinstated.
User:Pythagoras has added a rewritten section about the virtual first amendment into this article again, but is now claiming that since the rewritten section hasn't run the gamut of consensus and discussion, it is not violative of consensus to include the section in the article. The prior consensus is summarized here. My position is that the section (seen here), while possibly presented in a slightly more NPOV manner than the previous section, (1) still overemphasizes a minority viewpoint, giving it undue weight without any balance, (2) is self-referential at times, and (3) is still POV and OR. Any other comments? - Jersyko· talk 14:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I know a crank when I read one. There may be absence of consensus on the external link; but the several paragraphs will not do, and have been removed before. Septentrionalis 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the addition, seems to avoid the neutrality concerns in the previous version. User:MWeston
Actually, it is supposed to express a "neutral" point of view. The article as is has eliminated the "point of view" (if that is the correct term) that the meaning of the First Amendment could be "literal" (i.e. textual) or "virtual" (i.e. interpretive). It eliminates it entirely. Nothing neutral about that.
I removed the following because it seemed misplaced. Perhaps it belongs in an article about theories of the POV it's suggesting.
If someone thinks it belongs elsewhere in this article, feel free to work it in. Placed where it was, it came across as POV. Moulder 07:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
When the amendment was written, did the word "press" mean "printing press" only, or had the word already been abstracted to mean journalism and political opinion writing? Thomaso 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The constant vandalism to this page is harshing my mellow. Is it time for semi-protection again? -- lquilter 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"The First Amendment was one of the first guarantees of religious freedom: neither the English Bill of Rights, nor the French Declaration of Rights, contains an equivalent guarantee."
Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the French Declaration of the Rights of Man does contain a guarantee concerning religious freedom, however I'm not too sure how far this goes exactly without looking it up; personally, I think it's something open to interpretation, which would require some sort of analysis as to how the First Republic upheld it. Either way, I don't think that this is a statement we should present as fact without some evidence; maybe a restructured comment referring to similar guarantees in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (which, incidentally, is its correct title).
137.205.251.1 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I am curious about the basis for tax exemptions granted to religious institutions. Is this a consequence of the first amendment? What is the reasoning? Thanks -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we have missed an important area, namely compulsory speech, particularly as it interrelates with religion.
The following is the text that I inserted in the Frank Murphy article, which I think deserves some sort of consideration here:
Additionally, we have actions which impinge on the free exercise of religion. I recognize that Murphy was on the dissenting end of this opinion, but in any event the court was ruling on the issue:
For your consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This section states that American freedom of the press is one of the most extensive in the world. However, according to Reporters without Borders, the US falls in the third-highest category of press freedom -- many developed nations are in the 1st or 2nd category & almost all developed nations are in the top 3. This implies that the US is actually more restrictive in press freedoms than most developed nations. K.d.stauffer ( talk) 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the above conclusion. Reporters without Borders' ranking is dubious. For example, it ranks Canada as freer than the US. I know of at least two incidents in the past year in which writers, both newspaper columnists, were summoned before a "human rights commission". The offence was the "hate crime" of criticizing Islam. The commission has the power to fine the defendants. I'm not sure what else. But, of course, there is also the humiliation and Orwellian experience of having to explain one's motives for criticizing the religion. As a religion is a system of beliefs and ideas, it is bizarre that one should have to explain one's motives in criticizing or ridiculing ideas in a supposed free society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.114 ( talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it a little misleading to mention the Bill of Rights 1689 in the way that it is used now? As I understand it the Bill of Rights related mostly to Parliaments rights over the monarch and would therefore only be rights of the people at large by proxy. In the same way that saying that the Magna Carta gave the average peasant (the vast majority of the population) the right to trial by his peers, when it was in fact gave the feudal Barons the right to not be tried by "lesser people" (the Magistrates appointed by the King.) -- Tyrfing ( talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to raise that the Pruneyard Doctrine discussion in the "Libel, slander, and private action" section doesn't seem to hold a neutral point of view; it seems rather slanted in favor of the property owners. Specifically, it seems to take on a rhetorical tone, as if to begin a debate. I have not updated that section because I am not knowledgeable of the circumstances discussed in the section; can anyone comment?
Tvynr ( talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The correct citation is 249 U.S. 211, not 49 U.S. 211 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.231.2 ( talk) 13:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "The Supreme Court never ruled on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and even the leading critics of the law, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for the laws' unconstitutionality on the basis of the First Amendment, among other Constitutional provisions..."
The argument was not that the Sedition Acts violated the First Amendment, but Congress was not vested with any powers over speech or the press, i.e., Sedition Acts would been unconstitutional if there had been no First Amendment. The purpose of the First Amendment was a declaration that no such power over the press or speech had been delegated and not a restraint of an existing power belonging to Congress. LawPro ( talk) 07:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Temporarily commented this section:
It seems to be missing quotes, making it appear as if Wikipedia is editorializing. Could some kind soul read through the material and add quotes at the appropriate places? Regrettably, I don't have the time. 82.95.254.249 ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state." This sentence in the intro is uncited, and I can't seem to find anything in the article on the 14th amendment or due process on it. Perhaps it should have a citation for whatever decision it's referring to? I'd certainly find it helpful, at least :) -- bd_ ( talk) 02:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Are the any relevant post-Internet updates? Seems like something people (like me) will wonder. Noloop ( talk) 16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The meaning of "the press" is a bit disputed. Most scholars, I think, agree it refers to the printing press. So freedom of speech and freedom of the press together encompass freedom of expression. When I press the "Submit" button below, I am exercising my freedom of press. The news media, however, like to think it confers special rights on them, and the 1st Amendment is often described as singling out the journalism industry for special rights. That's seems pretty silly to me, if you think about the context: the Bill of Rights specified fundamental individual rights.
Anyway, we need to be careful about phrases like "In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Court ruled that the First Amendment did not grant a member of the press the right to refuse a subpoena from a grand jury." Regardless of whether you agree with my preferred interpretation, we shouldn't imply one interpretation is right. I propose this article avoid the phrase "press" except when citing the 1st Amendment. If we want to refer to journalism, we should say that rather than "the press." I edited the above sentence, but it was reverted for reasons I don't understand. The phrase "member of the press" obviously uses "press" to mean the journalism industry. Noloop ( talk) 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Guantanamo captive Ali al-Bahlul's military defense attorneys filed a fifty page appeal of his sentence on first amendment grounds: "Mr. al Bahlul is not a sympathetic defendant. He embraces an ideology that glorifies violence, justifies terrorism and opposes constitutional democracy. As offensive as it may be, [Bahlul's film work] is speech that falls within the core protections of the First Amendment, which forbids the prosecution of `the thoughts, the beliefs, the ideals of the accused."
So, does this appeal merit coverage in this article?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Surely an exemption section is required detailing where the First Amendment doesn't apply, e.g. certain obscene/pornographic material (Miller test), matters of national security, and supporting the boycott of Israel. The Patriot Act reduction on civil liberties would also affect the freedoms afforded by the First Amendment, should this be mentioned here? Zarcadia ( talk) 09:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Should the implications of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission be included under the heading "Political Speech"? Specifically, I'm referring to the majority opinion's conclusion that corporations and unions are entities protected by the 1st Amendment and have a Constitutional right to political speech. PenoftheAuthor ( talk) 18:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In my lifetime, the freedom to assemble and petition our government for a redress of grievances has created the largest political changes. From the civil rights movement, to the anti-Vietnam war movement, to the tea party movement, Americans have manged to alter the national course of events by exercising this political right and making the government take notice when it would rather not. Freedom of speech, the freedom to individual expression, and freedom to peaceably assemble and put political clout [redress of grievances] to that free speech are equally important. It is missing in the introduction and, I believe, it should be given just as much importance as each other part. kmh ( talk) 16:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In Lane v. Owens (03-B-1544, United States District Court, District of Colorado), the First Amendment was used to successfully argue that school children could not be compelled by law to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.231.179 ( talk) 07:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There really needs to be a section on how somehow the government thinks it's a-ok (when actually it's unconstitutional) to prohibit religions and churches from endorsing certain political candidates. I came here looking for information on that and found none much to my dismay. -- PaladinWriter ( talk) 10:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Should'nt there be an addition or a change in the First Amendment that includes racial profiling. For so long African Americans have been racial profiled. Now we are back at this same place just with a different Race. I don't believe this is fair that someone has to go through life worring about whether they will be profiled because of the color of their skin, or they way they dress, their hair, or even the music they like. There should be a law that premits this from happening.
Myshine4real ( talk) 03:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Ms. Harris
In the lead paragraph, an un-footnoted sentence notes twentieth century decisions that the First Amendment restricts more than just Congress. I think there should be an expanded mention of how the Fourteenth Amendment modifies the First Amendment.
Barring that, I believe there should be a sub-headline called something like, Effect of the Fourteenth Amendment on the First at the major place where the Fourteenth is mentioned in the text.
Barring that, the lead section sentence on the Fourteenth should be footnoted. (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 ( talk) 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a question, from one having no formal education in constitutional law.
The first amendment explicitly protects the right "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Why then do I have scores of images in my mind of peaceful demonstrations, with an obvious political intent, doing no harm to either public property or private persons, being violently broken up by police? They announce it to be an "unlawful assembly" over the megaphone, and then break it up.
If this were but a few isolated events taken place over the years then I would not bother bringing it up. But it really isn't; you see it every few weeks on the news, and the reporters reporting the event don't even bother to remind the viewer that what they are seeing is the repression of an expressly protected constitutional right. Can someone explain this to me?
Really, I am not trying to grandstand here, I am honestly curious. I came to this article looking for answers and could find none. Could someone please add to this article, or create a new article, explaining to me why the routine breaking up, often violently, of otherwise peaceful assemblies is such a common and, as far as I can tell, accepted occurrence in America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.120.74 ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just introduced a citation of this book into the Separation of church and state in the United States article. Separately from the point for which I cited it, the book describes some wheeling and dealing re the First Amendment between John Leland and James Madison. The book says that Leland had planned a campaign against ratification of the constitution, that as a powerful Baptist he would probably have been able to prevent ratification by Virginia, and that without ratification by Virginia the constitution would have failed. However, Madison and Leland cut a deal for Leland to withdraw as an antiratification candidate and instead work to convince Baptists to vote for ratification in exchange for Madison introducing an amendment in the first Congress with the wording of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Serious scholars probably know the story, but it was new to me and was interesting to learn. I thought that it might deserve a mention here, but I didn't want to make a ham-fisted edit of the Background section and plunk it in. Instead, I've mentioned it here thinking that one of the regular editors of this article might put it in a bit more artfully than I would have. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Under the Freedom of Speech section, the article states that, "The Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century". I think that this statement is wrong. In Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877), the Supreme Court upheld the Comstock Act against a First Amendment challenge (among other things). While it is true that Jackson also deals with Enumerated Powers and Fourth Amendment issues, the freedom of speech issue is addressed and settled:
So I think that, unless we want to be picky about distinguising freedom of speech from freedom of press, at least one pre-1900 Supreme Court case concerned the constitutionality of a federal law on free speech grounds.
Accordingly, I think the article should be amended, but as an anonymous user lack the means to do this.
128.12.32.48 ( talk) 08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Neither the phrase nor the concept of "separation of church and state" can be found in the First Amendment. The phrase "separation of church and state" has been taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The letter was unrelated to constitutional documents authored by Jefferson. Wikipedia has inserted this phrase into the definition of the First Amendment to insinuate that this phrase or its concept exists within the First Amendment itself. It does not, and should be removed. Duffbash ( talk) 19:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The U.S. Constitution does not ban nor promote any laws, be it federal or state, to ban speech in the public. However, there are laws in existence to prevent libel, slander, defamation of ones' character and verbal hate crimes (" hate speech").
Five known public arenas where the freedom of speech does not completely apply in:
Something about the phrasing in the establishment clause section lacks NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.221.5 ( talk) 08:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This article makes out conservatives to be strict interpretationalists, when this is not always the case. 146.129.250.98 ( talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
In the section describing the liberal view of freedom or religion, in a place where it seems the letter by the founding father Jefferson belongs, there is an unrelated quote by President and actor Reagan. Was this article on freedom censored? Skintigh ( talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), the Supreme Court held that a statutory “disturbing the peace” conviction for a peaceable demonstration containing speech that may potentially incite violence infringed on a demonstrator’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. The court ruled that the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly could not be denied because of hostility to their assertion or exercise, noting that first amendment protections are most necessary when their exercise invites dispute, induces unrest, and stirs people to anger.
In Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), the Supreme Court held that the arrests and convictions of 187 marchers were an attempt by South Carolina to “make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views” where the marchers’ actions were an exercise of First Amendment rights “in their most pristine and classic form.” The Court described the common law crime of breach of the peace “not susceptible of exact definition.” In Edwards, Justice Clark dissented, arguing that the City Manager’s action may have averted a major catastrophe because of the “almost spontaneous combustion in some Southern communities in such a situation.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConLawCookies ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone explain why this passes WP:PRIMARY ? ( W090584 ( talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC))
Has this article been semi-protected? The history log says a hidden protection tag was added to the article, but there's no log entry indicating that the article was actually semi-protected. SMP0328. ( talk) 04:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny." This is nonsense opinion. The first amendment of the Constitution was written to protect religious tyranny from creeping in and having merit in the government just as well. This needs to be corrected. One of the main reasons our founding fathers fled England was to break away from the religious enforcement of the state church of England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBM72 ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to liberals, the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state
Please remove according to liberals. Liberals are not an established group with established thoughts or ideals. Many people believe or have been educated based upon the concept of separation of church and state, liberalism is not a qualifier for this belief.
At least ask for a citation with regards to how liberals are responsible for this idea. 216.138.118.154 ( talk) 18:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The photo of the Bill of Rights used with this article is not the final Bill of Rights approved by Congress and the states. It has 12 articles, not 10. Not knowing the history of the document well, I don't know if that is important. Three.erdad ( talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Ladd Brubaker
I would like to add, or at least confirm, that the first amendment was a primary and formal reference to freedom. I am looking for the quote and will try to provide but cannot find: "Take from me all my liberties, but allow me the freedom of speech and I shall win them all back." or something to that effect.
Looking for help. Jambay ( talk) 06:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
All of which belongs in "Background" section. Still trying to find the "original intent" of the first amendment. Jambay ( talk) 06:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The Establishment Clause's meaning has been a point of contention among different groups and its meaning has been interpreted differently at different times in American history. [1] One view is that the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state, [2] [3] although this term did not appear in the First Amendment but in a personal letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to religious dissenters in Connecticut. [1] Another view is that the Establishment Clause solely prevents the government from establishing a state church, not from publicly acknowledging God. [4] [2]
The words "separation of church and state" are actually not in the First Amendment. They appear instead in a letter written in 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson to dissenters in Connecticut. The church leaders were worried that government might someday tell them how, where, and when to worship God. Jefferson said not to worry because the First Amendment was like a very tall wall and it would do a good job protecting churches from government interference. The understanding of what Jefferson meant by "separation of church and state" changed over the long years that followed.
Conservative activists point out that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution-and they're right. The phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Connecticut Baptists in which he praised the First Amendment's "wall separating church and state." The Supreme Court quoted that letter in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Conservative scholars have long argued that the "wall" was mostly intended to block the creation of official state religions-not to completely close the door between government and religious life.
This section is, as its sources make clear, a compilation of opinions available on the web. Even if they were the best websites available, this has no place in our article.
But they are not even the best the web has to offer. Most of them are ill-informed; the point that drives me to remove the section entirely is the claim that Jefferson's letter was written to "church leaders" in Connecticut. It was written to a congregation of Baptists; in the early nineteenth century, the Connecticut had an established church, and it was Congregationalist; the State Government funded the Congregationalist sectarian institution, Yale, out of taxes paid by Baptists and Anglicans, which was constitutional - in 1806.
Please do not restore this; if we must have such a section, let us find what secondary sources have to say about this debate. But why should we have one at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Conservatives claim that liberals misinterpret the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. They point to the opinion written for the Supreme Court by Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendement means at least this: neither a state nor a Federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another." The establishment clause, conservatives insist, precludes the national state from promoting any religious denomination but does not prohibit state governments and local communitites from developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals.
Government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions. This has been, and is, the liberal or "separationist" reading of the Establishment Clause.
User:Pmanderson (Septentrionalis), you must gain consensus before removing information from the article. You have been reverted by two different users. I am not sure what the problem is. I quoted the reference published by the Yale University Press above that delineates the conservative viewpoint. Moreover, I also provided the quote from the other reference which elucidates the liberal opinion on the subject. I would encourage you to read WP:CENSOR. We cannot remove information from the article simply because we do not like it; rather, verifiable information that is buttressed by reliable sources is the standard. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Half of this is invention: what Pew asked was "is the United States a Christian nation?" The conclusion that this means agreement that the Federal Government can foster religion is Original Research, not supported by the sources, for the excellent reason that it is perfectly possible to believe that the US is a nation substantially made up of Christians, and that nevertheless religion does not require public support - and does not need it.
Please note that the POV here rests in having this section at all, not whether it favors the view it calls "liberal" or the view it calls "conservative". The view that there is a war between two monolithic armies is a fringe view, held only on the extreme left and the extreme right; this random collection of unascribed talking points is pointless: hire a blog. Is it a liberal view that the United States is not founded in the Christian religion? That a state-supported institution should teach about religion, but should not have any particular creed taught on its campus? That chaplains, both in the Armed Forces and in Congress, are injurious to republican government and to religion? Yet those are the views of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As for the substance, this is so much hot air. "Liberals believe" this; "conservatives believe" that. Who? Which liberals? Which conservatives? Any article which suggests that there is total agreement among liberals or conservatives on any points will be laughed at by anybody who knows any conservatives, and laughed at even harder by anybody who knows any liberals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
(also discussed in parent talk section)
Reason for cleanup = Section is very incomplete examination of topic & takes sources out of context. Section on "meaning" cannot be separated from SCOTUS rulings. Grade school textbook is used as a reference twice and is not a proper source for an encyclopedia article that involves political philosophy. Sources about cases decided by the Supreme Court, and thus the law, are taken out of context & misrepresented simply as the opinions of "liberals and secularists" (When "secularists" ARE finally mentioned in the quoted source attached to usage of the word, the position is a DIFFERENT position). While some sources quoted carefully avoid saying "rulings", they do say majority, which has the same effect. Other quotes in sources presented (and many others available) do indeed refer to actual decisions/rulings of SCOTUS. Section may also require 1> removal 2>change of title
As the section stands, it is sophomoric synthesis to advance a POV rather than to seriously address "meaning". -- JimWae ( talk) 05:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You state that "while some sources quoted carefully avoid saying "rulings", they do say majority, which has the same effect." This constitutes WP:SYNTH. Why not state what is being plainly said in the sources? I shall provide them here for you below. The reference titled Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum (ASCD) states:
Government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions. This has been, and is, the liberal or 'separationist' reading of the Establishment Clause. On the other end of the spectrum, many religious liberals and secularists view any government funding of religious groups and any government expression of religion, however indirect or nonsectarian, as a violation of conscience and a stepping stone to an unholy allaince of church and state.
The reference titled Does God make a difference? ( Oxford University Press) states:
I suggest that conservative justices tend to favor a weak reading of both the Free Exercise and Establishment clause, while liberals tend to favor strong readings. That is, conservative justices have been less concerned about the dangers of establishment and less concerned to protect free exercise rights, particularly of religious minorities. Liberals, by contrast, have been opposed to any possibility of a religious establishment and they have been relatively more concerned to protect the free exercise rights of minorities.
The reference titled Recasting Conservatism: Oakeshott, Strauss, and the Response to Postmodernism ( Yale University Press) states:
Conservatives claim that liberals misinterpret the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The establishment clause, conservatives insist, precludes the national state from promoting any religious denomination but does not prohibit state governments and local communities from developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals.
This information from each of these academic sources corroborates one another and is even reflected in less scholarly but informative web-based sources, such as Student News Daily and Belief Net (note: these sources are not currently qualifying any statements in the article). The article simply must state what the reliable sources presents, which is being done in the current revision of the article (see WP:V). The article, in the above section, does indeed discuss the Supreme Court with the sentence: "However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states." You are more than welcome to add referenced information to that section if this interests you. However, if you do so, keep in mind that you must present the information neutrally. For example, Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum (ASCD) states: "Dissenting voices on the Court (including the current Chief Justice) take what is sometiems called an "accomodationalist" view: the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from creating a national church of favoring one religion over another, but it does not prohibit general acknowledgement of religion by government (such as allowing nonsectarian prayers at school-sponsored events) or allowing religious groups to receive government funding on the same basis as secular groups (through vouchers for religious schools, for example)." I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings you might have had. With regards, Anupam Talk 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
If necessary, I shall supply sources for the situation of the Danbury Baptists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
On the chief substantive point at issue, it would be easy to accumulate sources which explain what was actually happening in 1802: