Posted by
Nebraska Sage on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:05:35 AM
Think about it... The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Declaration of Independence is frought with references to abuses of these four issues as well. But what does it really mean?
I'm sure you can come up with millions of opinions on this. Generally I'd suspect a persons interpretation of this meaning will be more in line with a subjective leaning toward that persons own political leanings. However if you look at it through the prisim of history and accounting what has changed in society in history you can get a more objective idea of it's over all meaning.
Let me attempt this for you.
If you consider what society had available to "get the word out" in the eighteenth century you'd come up with basically two methods. The first being one that is still possible, though severely limited today. That method being by the voice. We have the advantage on our founders here though since we have amplification equipment they didn't really have.
They had an advantage on us in that they could pretty much go to any town square and speak their minds without interruption. We of the twentyfirst century are restricted. There are very few town squares now, even in small towns, and in big cities you have to pay fees and file for permits and maybe even rent security and other expenses. When that is all done we can speak as freely as our ancestors.
The second means of our founders was the press, more completely the printing press. Books, newsletters, news papers, flyers, posters, etc., were all means of getting the word out to people who you could not speak directly with. The printing press allowed a communications expansion that didn't exist prior to the advent of the printing press. And our founders knew this, that is why they placed it in the Constitution. But what were they saying with that word "press"?
History was fairly stagnet until the twentieth century when electricity and innovation allowed the transmission of voice over recorded means, the airwaves, to amplify it so more could here you at an event, and even video to show your emotions in a way not possible in a printing press. All these have one common denominator - they are all means of communication; means of getting the word out.
I contend the Supreme Court looks at this amendment through the clouded prisim of partisan political interpretation. They are not being objective, rather they let their belief system to cloud their interpretation to fit their political leanings.
This assumption of the Founding Fathers meaning forms of communication will most likely lead you to believe you have the right to have electronic town squares (blogs, chat rooms, etc), and to petition the Government via your channels of communication. These channels used to be in person or in writing, but the Govenment has acknowledged their acceptance of electronic communication via e-mails, telephone, and even comments on television. So the Supreme Court should follow suit and when it comes up agreeing communicating via electronic enhancment is stilll a freedom of the press.
But how does this affect the religions section of the first amendment. Pretty much this is a freedom communication as well. It is the freedom for an American citizen to speak out on any specific religion or religions of their choice wthout either being forced to do it or prevented from doing so by their Government.
I should be able to stand in a government operated park and preach my religion without government interferrence in either direction. I should not have to worry about being forced to preach this nor should I be prevented from speaking on the one of my choice.
In a nutshell all the parts of the first amendment are really about freedom to communicate. To communicate concerning your religion; to communicate concerning your political beliefs; and to communicate with your government your desire to right a wrong - redress a grievance. And it say we can do these things by direct voice or by any enhanced means of getting your voice out.
So, get your voice out! And while you are at it communicate with your government representatives your desire for them to stop treading on your first amendment rights.
Sage Advice from Nebraska