So you think the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is important enough to this great nation that it deserves top billing on the Bill of Rights? Maybe you’re right. But have you considered that the 1st Amendment merely gives us an illusion of freedoms, while countless laws undermine the very protections the Amendment claims to guarantee?
Amendment I
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.
I’m no expert on any Amendment, or on the Constitution itself. Frankly, I didn’t even bother looking up any information in excess of the wording of the Amendment itself. This is an argument, not a term-paper. To be fair, though, attempting to argue a point without even baseline knowledge of the subject is not unlike what you normally find on social media.
The 1st Amendment can be broken down into five major protections: freedoms of religion, speech, and the press, along with the right to protest, and to petition. The Amendment begins with Congress shall make no law respecting . . . This does not mean that any of the things to follow are legal, per say, they just can’t be made illegal. The example everyone knows is yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. You are legally protected in your speaking of those words, but you are not protected from the panic resulting from those words, nor from the chaos that ensues.
Here’s a little scenario. You and a couple friends are given permission to assemble outside a private theater entrance. One buddy hands out mock-ups of press releases you created, touting the evils of the religion of Scientology. The other friend petitions moviegoers for signatures to ban next week’s release of the new Tom Cruise movie. Being the loudmouth of the group, you deliver a prepared speech touting a slew of catchphrases intermingled with the classic “Extra, extra, read all about it . . .” shtick. But when a tween flicks his Bic and tries to burn the petition, you yell “Fire!” This creates a panic in the sold-out theater, resulting in three deaths, two amputations, and one movie (ironically, starring Tom Cruise) about that tragic day.
My understanding is that, strictly speaking, you’d be protected in the above scenario from prosecution by all five dictums of the 1st Amendment. But in reality, screaming “Fire!” would break laws regarding disturbing of the peace, and lead to a series of additional felonies, including manslaughter. All while that little twerp with the Bic escapes scot-free.
We all know the basics of cause & effect. Things don’t just occur all willy-nilly. You do something (the cause) and something results (the effect). As the saying goes, a butterfly flaps its wings (cause), and halfway around the world [fill in your zaniest Rube Goldberg effect here]. In my crazy manslaughter example, all the causes should be protected by the 1st Amendment, so you’d think those three prison-bound protestors did nothing illegal. After all, how can you have an illegal effect result from a legal cause? It makes no sense!
In reality, though, there are other laws that supersede the 1st Amendment protection of free speech, making their actions illegal: disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, etc. Speaking of inciting a riot, that’s nearly the result whenever my wife hears the C-word uttered. Still, she wouldn’t care if we were driving through a National Forest and I exclaimed, “What a beautiful country!” (Sound it out . . . and I’ve ruined the word for you!) Sorry, but unless it’s made illegal via some other law, the 1st Amendment protects my freedom to say or write terrible wordplay.
When a vaccine for the Coronavirus is widely available, anyone will be able to opt out of receiving the vaccine due to religious beliefs, just as parents have been opting their children out for decades. That is unless laws pass, overriding this 1st Amendment protection in an effort to prevent further spread of the pandemic. We may very well cross this bridge soon.
With social media, and whistleblower sites on the internet, anyone can become a defacto member of the press. Edward Snowden leaked documents proving the NSA was spying on its own people. Julian Assange hunkered down for seven (I assume, very boring) years in the Embassy of Ecuador in London after the WikiLeaks . . . umm, leaks. These should be protected by freedom of the press. That is, if the government didn’t supersede the 1st Amendment with laws under the pretense of protecting information critical to national defense.
Americans have the right to peacefully assemble. That is unless you assemble on Lafayette Square, blocking the Commander-in-Chief’s stroll to St. John’s Episcopal Church for an impromptu photo op. That’s when rubber bullets and tear gas seem to become the appropriate response. No law was needed to bypass this freedom afforded by the 1st Amendment. All it took was the desire for POTUS to hold up a book in a manner that makes it apparent he’s never actually read one.
In years past, petitions may have been of greater importance than they are today. With the advent of the internet and social media it can now take only hours or less for information to electronically circumnavigate the globe. No need to start a petition, get it manually signed by countless people, present it to Congress, etc. Simply starting a social media campaign will often do the trick. I will miss the look on the face of the retiree holding a clipboard outside the library when I tell her, “I’m a convicted felon.” Anything to get out of signing a petition, am I right?
So, you still think the 1st Amendment is a keeper? I may someday find myself yelling over my shoulder, “I know my rights!” as cold steel compresses my wrists. That’s when you can bet your ass I’ll be arguing that one of my 1st Amendment freedoms were denied. So, I guess, yeah, come to think of it . . . You’re Probably Right.
[005] August 12, 2020