Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 10, 2004.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been assessed as top-importance on the assessment scale.
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Text move?

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)

[edit] "The Meaning of the First Amendment" section

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)

  • Well, at the very least it needs to be substantially rewritten to reflect the fact that this is just one theory espoused as to the interpretive gloss on the Amendment. It doesn't mention at all the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment affects the scope of the First, or that the Court is struggling mightily to determine how the Founding Fathers would have applied the language of the Amendment to pornography, mass media, telemarketers, television, the internet, etc. BD2412 T 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Jersyko & BD2412 -- I absolutely agree. This "virtual first amendment" is not a useful abstraction, because blurs the distinction between the amendment's text and caselaw interpreting it. Also, we're not going to put a "virtual" text in front of every wikipedia article about a legal topic. It's a complicated, awkward way of saying something simple: the text of the amendment doesn't provide unambiguous answers to every question!

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

  • Could you respond to the concern expressed in my first comment above? As it stands right now, there seems to be consensus here, with your lone dissent, to either rewrite the section, remove it completely, or place it lower in the text. I suggest we stick with the most conservative option for the moment and place it lower with a different section title until we can discuss this further. - Jersyko·talk 19:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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 read the debate above. Actually, it was not resolved at all, but rather discussion simply ceased. In fact, there were other editors who expressed the same concern BD2412, Barkingdoc, an anon, and I have expressed recently. Also, Wikipedia is not the U.S. government, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, thus the First Amendment does not apply to Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not policies, however, do apply to information on Wikipedia. Finally, could you flesh out your response ("section is thoroughly relevant, not off-topic, thoroughly on-topic, absent any bias whatsoever") to the counterarguments posted, possibly referencing exactly how each of the concerns expressed are misguided? Thanks! - Jersyko·talk 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest some further concrete objections to the "virtual text" section of the article.

I have some specific, nit-picky objections:
1. This section describes judicial interpretation of the constitution as "functionally revising" the text. Judicial decisions do not carry that kind of weight. Judges (almost) always acknowledge that judicial interpretation is secondary to the Constitutional text, which means incorrect decisions, far from being functional revisions of the text, get overruled.
2. It is misleading to use the quote from Denver v. FCC to suggest that the Court acknowledges its case law contradicts the constitutional text. The First Amendment doesn't say anything about not regulating speech; it says Congress can't abridge the "freedom of speech." Just as laws forbidding polygamy or human sacrifice are not "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]," the words "freedom of speech" are not inconsistent with some speech regulation.
3. The statement that "the literal text of the First Amendment is no longer used by the Supreme Court in rendering its decisions..." is wrong. The Supreme Court explicitly relies on the literal text of the First Amendment in every First Amendment case I have ever read. (Of course, it relies on other things as well....)
I also have a general objection:
4. A "virtual text" is a bad way to describe precedents, because judicial precedents do not carry legal force in the same way enacted text does. For example, old precedents that have been repeatedly reaffirmed are much stronger than controversial recent precedents. But court decisions look the same in a "virtual text" regardless of whether they are old or new. Another example: the "virtual text" gives no indication of the factual background that gave rise to a particular legal rule. But that factual background can be an important factor in assessing whether the rule will apply to a given set of new facts. If nothing else, weak precedents can be constrained to their narrow facts, while stronger precedents are applied more generally. There are a lot of differences like these between the way court decisions work and the way constitutional texts work; the point is, conflating the two is not empirically accurate.

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:

1. This section describes judicial interpretation of the constitution as "functionally revising" the text. Judicial decisions do not carry that kind of weight. Judges (almost) always acknowledge that judicial interpretation is secondary to the Constitutional text, which means incorrect decisions, far from being functional revisions of the text, get overruled.

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.

2. It is misleading to use the quote from Denver v. FCC to suggest that the Court acknowledges its case law contradicts the constitutional text. The First Amendment doesn't say anything about not regulating speech; it says Congress can't abridge the "freedom of speech." Just as laws forbidding polygamy or human sacrifice are not "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]," the words "freedom of speech" are not inconsistent with some speech regulation.

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.

3. The statement that "the literal text of the First Amendment is no longer used by the Supreme Court in rendering its decisions..." is wrong. The Supreme Court explicitly relies on the literal text of the First Amendment in every First Amendment case I have ever read. (Of course, it relies on other things as well....)
I also have a general objection:

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.

4. A "virtual text" is a bad way to describe precedents, because judicial precedents do not carry legal force in the same way enacted text does. For example, old precedents that have been repeatedly reaffirmed are much stronger than controversial recent precedents. But court decisions look the same in a "virtual text" regardless of whether they are old or new. Another example: the "virtual text" gives no indication of the factual background that gave rise to a particular legal rule. But that factual background can be an important factor in assessing whether the rule will apply to a given set of new facts. If nothing else, weak precedents can be constrained to their narrow facts, while stronger precedents are applied more generally. There are a lot of differences like these between the way court decisions work and the way constitutional texts work; the point is, conflating the two is not empirically accurate.

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.

Just the Facts

  • Would you agree that even though you and others consider the Supreme Court to be revising the First Amendment via a "virtual text," there are a large number of scholars who disagree with such an assessment and would characterize the Court's actions differently? Also, have you read WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a soapbox? Thanks! - Jersyko·talk 13:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I still adhere to the views I stated above (in February and July of 2005). The assertion in the current text that "the literal text of the First Amendment has been functionally revised through the doctrine of stare decisis" is clearly POV. This whole section subtracts from rather than adding to the reader's understanding. The concept of a "virtual First Amendment" is not a significant viewpoint that needs exposition in this article. To remove the entire section and replace it with a single unannotated "See also" link to the Virtual first amendment article would still give this concept a bit more attention than it deserves. JamesMLane t c 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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

But you're ignoring the existence of the virtual first amendment article. The world is by no means being "deprived" of an alternative point of view; I even added a link to virtual first amendment article in this article. Your admission that it is "an alternative point of view" further demonstrates the need to remove the passage from the article. Finally, there has been months of debate on this subject, which is noted below, and there is an apprehensible consensus. - Jersyko·talk 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Action on the "Meaning of the First Amendment" section

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)

  • I've requested temporary semi-protection for this article, as my edit per consensus keeps getting reverted. - Jersyko·talk 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    I have protected this page due to a edit war ignoring consensus. Please notice that: 1) Protection is not endorsement of the current version; 2) This is a temporary measure, and the page will not stay protected forever. This action has been automatically logged and registered by me here. If you have any objection to the temporary protection of this article, however, please elaborate your point on this talk page. I would also like to encourage the parties involved in the issue that led to this protection to work out their differences on this page. Please remember to be civil, polite and thorough in your comments. Remember: the sooner the issue is resolved, the sooner the protection can be lifted. Thank you. Redux 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    If registered users start revert warring this, I will consider upping to full-protection, so please, let's not come to this point. Thanks, Redux 21:19, 25 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

  • There is neither a statute of limitations nor the concept of laches in Wikipedia -- an article may be improved at any time, and edits that make an article worse do not gain value from having been left alone for a time. The text that was removed was lengthy and discursive, and because of its length gave undue weight to a small minority view. A number of established Wikipedians, including Jerseyko, noticed and cooperatively improved the article by removing the discursion to a separate article. This is the Wiki Way. I add my voice to the consensus. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I still fail to see how readers are being "deprived" of anything when there is an article on the virtual first amendment already and a link to that article in this one. The text at issue is not merely a presentation of "fact," it is a presentation of opinion that is based on selective facts that happen to support an opinion (but could actually just as easily support others). I agree with Robert West in re undue weight, but would also point out that the following from Wikipedia's NPOV policy is relevant, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." If consensus had been to merely edit the section to remove bias, I would have done so. However, given that editing the section to remove weasel words and obvious bias would still leave a core of a libertarian polemic, that was not the consensus. Finally, though you hav eattempted to cast my actions as those of a rogue editor and "new user" (which I'm not sure I understand fully), I point again to the demonstrable consensus that this text should not remain in the article as written. - Jersyko·talk 14:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"Fanatic: someone who does what the Lord God would do if He only knew the facts of the case." What you get if you substitute our anon's silent majority for the Divinity, I'm not quite sure. In any case, this majority is welcome to edit and discuss the article; until they do, we must stay with WP policy: the test for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It is not Wikipedia's business to restore forgotten truths; Wikinfo exists for that. Our business to catalog the illusions that presently possess mankind. Septentrionalis 22:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

[edit] The Meaning of the First Amendment

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)

No State legislature or the Congress of the United States shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press all media of information; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This general prohibition shall be subject to the following elaborations, extensions, restrictions, limitations, interpretations and conditions: a. The absolute freedom of engaging in or refraining from speech and non-verbal communication, and receiving or refusing to receive information, without any coercion, shall be a rebuttable presumption in any administrative or judicial proceeding, concerning any attempts to abridge them. The onus of rebutting this presumption shall rest entirely on the party seeking such abridgment, by showing that the speech or non-verbal communication sought to be restrained, or the information to be withheld, do not, by virtue of some other conflicting and overriding considerations or necessities, fall within the categories of freedoms that this section is intended to protect; b. Any Congressional, State, or local legislation or regulation by any governmental authority, which is so imprecise, ambiguous, vague, overbroad, or excessively general in its terms that it provides a pretext for arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement, uncertainty in the minds of persons of common intelligence as to the limits of protected communication, and creating a chilling effect on the unrestrained exercise of freedoms clearly not proscribed, shall be wholly void on its face; except that insubstantial defects may enable the courts to merely sever unenforceable parts or specific applications thereof; c. Prior restraint shall not be imposed on any communication by institutionalized or informal censorship or coercion, however subtle, unless, in each instance such restraint is sought, a fair judicial hearing, following proper notice, is held; except where the required delay may cause irreparable harm, upon which a temporary restraining order, subject to a prompt subsequent hearing, may be issued . . . (end excerpt)

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:68.209.177.178

There have been many, many books written about the First Amendment. You happen to be impressed by the two you cite over and over. That's your privilege, but it's not a basis for cluttering the main article with items (even undisputed facts) about the contents of those particular books. For example, the article doesn't have a "See also" for Alexander Meiklejohn, and Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on Harry Kalven, Jr., although both of them were more notable in First Amendment analysis than Ladanyi or Krusch. JamesMLane t c 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagoras' addition

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 have filed an Rfc on this, fyi. - Jersyko·talk 14:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think pythagoras addition may be a way to look at it. But most lawyers and law professors simply list the famous cases and what they stand for. Pythagoras' analysis is too abstracted a treatment to place near the very front. If his analysis is close to representing how the courts analyze the first amendment violations, then I think the material should either go to a separate article on Theories of First Amendment Analysis or be placed toward the end of this article. If the article is made unduly large by his addition, we should edit for size and provide the link to a separate article, because the diagram is cool. John wesley 20:54, 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)

User:Pythagoras is now in violation of WP:3RR as he/she has readded the section to this article for a fourth time today. - Jersyko·talk 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the addition, seems to avoid the neutrality concerns in the previous version. User:MWeston

  • Welcome to Wikipedia. Please seek consensus rather than simply reverting. That's how it works here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This addition is rife with neutrality problems. For example: "So, under the text of the 1791 First Amendment, if jurists are faced with certain hypothetical situations, a certain mode of analysis is mandated." To the contrary, judges and scholars have argued for multiple different modes of analysis. This addition takes one (contested) viewpoint and elevates it to the status of established fact about which there can be no reasonable doubt. JamesMLane t c 18:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
James, that is an interesting point, but it seems to lead to a logical contradiction, and in fact seems to beg the question. The fact that an assertion is contested does not mean that other assertions are equally legitimate. For example, it is a fact that the Constitution states that it is "the supreme law of the land", and there really is no legitimate mode of interpretation that can say that the word "no" means "some", or that freedom of speech can be turned into its exact opposite through what some refer to as "interpretation". It ought to be obvious that there is no text in the Constitution proper which has mandated the nodes which appear in the second flow chart. If there is text in the Constitution to that effect, I would like to know about it! At the very least, the article as it stands should appear, perhaps with some minor editing to remove the neutrality problems that you assert are present. User:MWeston
Your opinion amounts to this: "It ought to be obvious that there is no text in the Constitution proper" that supports certain decisions of the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, or that supports some of the dissenting opinions that Justices have given. Obviously, those Justices would disagree with you. Just because they're on the Court doesn't mean they're right, but Wikipedia isn't going to take a position for one side or the other on a subject that's contested by experts. Besides, if it's so obvious, don't we make the point adequately by providing the reader with the complete and exact verbatim text of the First Amendment? JamesMLane t c 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in the addition. It expresses the point of view that the Amendment means what it says. Eliminating that point of view doesn't seem neutral to me. User:Firefox109
"It expresses the point of view" - exactly. See WP:NPOV. Articles are not supposed to express any point of view. - Jersyko·talk 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

  • Given the flood of sockpuppets, I've requested semi-protection on this article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what a "sock puppet" is, but as a supporter of free speech, I think people ought to have the right to make statements whether or not other people agree with them. At any rate, I consulted the "neutral point of view" policy, and it looks to me like this article has been hijacked by some people with axes to grind. The policy is pretty clear on this point. "Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly." So the actions of a few people here seem well outside of this policy, they have made no effort at all to edit it. This is a pretty sad commentary, especially where the First Amendment is concerned. By the way, I had the opportunity to read the Krusch book, and even though it has a liberal tone in parts, it is a real eye-opener. This small essay only touches on a few of the arguments in that book. User:Bush2008
  • Good idea on the semi-prot, it was semi-protected before and it helped ease the flood of reversions for awhile. However, since there's obviously a lot of sockpuppetry going on here, and because this debate, in one form or another has been going on for over a year now, I think it might be wise, though unfortunate, to see what further steps can be taken to prevent this editor from continuing to add the information into the article against consensus, in violation of sockpuppetry rules, and in violation of 3RR. Oh, and Bush2008/Pythagoras/MWeston/JustTheFacts - please see what Wikipdia is not. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 20:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed content from intro

I removed the following because it seemed misplaced. Perhaps it belongs in an article about theories of the POV it's suggesting.

In a survey commissioned by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum in January 2006, only one in the one thousand Americans surveyed can correctly name the 5 freedoms in the First Amendment, compared to the 22% who can name the five main characters in The Simpsons and the 24% who can name the three judges on American Idol. The margin of error was 3%. [2]

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)

[edit] Freedom of the press

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)

I think Freedom of the press#History is instructive here. Newspapers first started being printed in the early 1600s, so there was over 150 years of journalism before the adoption of the First Amendment. It seems that "press" was becoming more synonymous with "journalism" by the late 1700s. The strict licensing scheme in England, however, was most likely the motivation for including the Freedom of the Press clause in the Amendment. The licensing restricted both operation of the press and the content of what was printed. So, regardless of the assumed meaning of "press" in the First Amendment at the time of its adoption, practically, it meant both the actual press and journalism generally. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sigh / vandalism

The constant vandalism to this page is harshing my mellow. Is it time for semi-protection again? --lquilter 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it's been bad enough lately to warrant a semi-prot. But it has worsened a bit today, and if it keeps up . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Think this needs a citation?

"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 agree a citation would be good. (The DOROM says "No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law." ([3][Columbia Law School]) I'm not sure whether that contradicts the claim, though. Jackrepenning 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basis for Tax Exemptions

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)

It is not addressed in the First Amendment as there was no such thing as income tax at the time it was written (that came later with the 16th Amendment). The exemption for churches is written into the tax code, not the constitution and was a compromise based on First Amendment principals. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another area of First Amendment protection

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:

During World War II, Murphy supported First Amendment rights as patriotism and nationalism became increasingly fervent. Some state governments passed laws requiring children to salute the flag and pledge allegiance each morning in school. Some religious groups protested these compulsory acts of patriotism . They argued their religion forbade their worship of secular images. Murphy voted with the majority to strike down that law in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943). In doing this about face from his earlier concurrence in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, Justice Murphy believed he had rectified an unfortunate and mistaken decision made when he was new to the court.[1]

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:

In Prince v. Massachusetts his fierce dissent declared: "Religious freedom is too sacred a right to be restricted or prohibited in any degree without convincing proof that a legitimate interest of the state is in grave danger." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944),[2]

For your consideration. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

[edit] International Significance

[edit] Part I

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)

Reporters Without Borders's ranking is highly subjective. On what objective grounds were those rankings based? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Part II

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)

You are correct as to the limited reach of the 1689 Bill. However, it is not misleading. It isn't that narrow and self-serving 'purpose' of the Bill that makes it relevant; look at the bigger picture: put another way, the purpose of the bill was subject [one branch] of government to the law. Government, or agents of government, not being above-the-law, was a very novel concept then and at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution. And many governments around the world today still do not follow the practice. The US constitution may do a better job than the English did a century earlier, but there is a definite similarity in the concept. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pruneyard Doctrine Discussion: NPV?

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 knowledgable of the circumstances discussed in the section; can anyone comment?

Tvynr (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)