• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United States' Bill of Rights : the 1st Amendment

Morning View

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Alright, so after reading articles about pornography, abortion, and homosexuality; a thought came to me.

I'm sure everyone here knows what the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights is.

"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."


So my question is:
How far can the government of the United States go in legislating restraints to protect the "general welfare" without abrogating or violating the elements of individual civil liberty? How far can individuals press existing laws to challenge or change time honored principles of statutory law, common law, and equity without jeopardizing the "general welfare" and "civil liberty" of the majority in society?

Consider with reference to:

Pornography and freedom of the press:
Is the publication of pornography within the provisions of the 1st amendment, or does it fall under censorship rule?

Abortion and the right to life:
What are the limits to privacy, liberty, happiness, and the right to life?

Gay rights and homosexual conduct under law:

Should gays have the same rights of equity in property and practice as exist in heterosexual community, why or why not?
 
Alright, so after reading articles about pornography, abortion, and homosexuality; a thought came to me.

I'm sure everyone here knows what the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights is.

"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."


So my question is:
How far can the government of the United States go in legislating restraints to protect the "general welfare" without abrogating or violating the elements of individual civil liberty? How far can individuals press existing laws to challenge or change time honored principles of statutory law, common law, and equity without jeopardizing the "general welfare" and "civil liberty" of the majority in society?

Good questions. There's not really a generic answer, as it depends on what you're referring to.


Consider with reference to:

Pornography and freedom of the press:
Is the publication of pornography within the provisions of the 1st amendment, or does it fall under censorship rule?

We have to know it when we see it, thanks to Justice Potter.

Abortion and the right to life:
What are the limits to privacy, liberty, happiness, and the right to life?


Gay rights and homosexual conduct under law:

Should gays have the same rights of equity in property and practice as exist in heterosexual community, why or why not?

These aren't really about the 1st Amendment so much as they are about the 14th. Both questions are also up in the air in many ways.
 
The 1st Amendment forbids Congress from enacting laws that would regulate speech or press before publication or punish after publication. At various times, many states passed laws in contradiction to the freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment; whereas the people of the United States claim to be protected by the amendment but rather contradicts themselves and pass off on a certain belief rather than what the government legislates. Publication of pornography, abortion, and Gay rights are common references to the First Amendment and its limitations. The amendment’s duality sparked the controversies surrounding pornographic publications, abortion, and gay rights. The First Amendment protects the liberty and freedom of residents of the United States therefore the publication of pornography, abortion, and gay rights should be protected by the amendment’s legalities; regardless of religious and popular beliefs.

Pornography has been the topic of discussion in the court systems for years. Many would like to see legislation against it and software to filter it. The problem is it is not that easy and making laws against it would pose an issue against the First Amendment. There have many issues brought up on the grounds that it is demoralizing to women and is filth for the eyes of children. However, there are far worse things children have been exposed to; such as violence, drugs, and etcetera. Freedom of press was created to protect any publication and its content. Pornography is protected by this rule however modified so it would only be accessible to the proper audience. An There are numerous reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the First Amendment. There is not any harm done by pornography. As stated before, pornography is not harmful to anyone if distributed correctly, as pornographic work can help people in reassuring their preference about sexuality. Essentially, the publication of pornography should be under the provisions of the First Amendment under certain limitations, as its censorship would be in complete violation of the Amendment.

As stated before, the Amendment protects the liberty of its people. It should be applied for women who choose to abort. Abortion is one of the greatest controversial issues facing the United States and the rest of the world. Abortions are usually/believed to be used if a woman has been a victim of rape, incest, and/or if the woman’s life is in grave peril. These issues referenced, women should be given the privacy of their personal life, wherein abortion falls in category. If the Supreme Court holds a case against a woman and her choice for abortion, the Supreme Court has violated a woman’s right to privacy, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and by several parts of the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment in the Constitution states, “no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Depriving them of an abortion would be depriving them of possible life and property (if you consider an unborn baby property of the mother). The court said that states may not interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion. For example, in the Roe v. Wade 1973 case, “Her life did not appear to be threatened by a continuation of the pregnancy, so no legal abortion was possible in Texas”. If a woman wants to abort, she should have full responsibility for her choice as it is her unborn baby (could be interpreted as property from a legal standpoint). With the plethora of privacy issues facing courts, the time for an amendment specifying the inalienable right to privacy is needed. No other factors should stop the woman from aborting, a man simply cannot choose for the woman to abort or not. Women’s privacy and liberty should be respected by anyone, as the 1st and 14th amendments legally protect a woman’s liberty and privacy over her life, regardless of outside interference.

Homosexuality, such an issue causing uproar in the United States, or any part of the world for that matter. Should gays have the same rights of equity in property and practice as exist in heterosexual communities? Absolutely. If the constitution promises equality before the law, there is no justification that clears right for any member of our society. Homosexuals are seeking for equal rights, not special rights. The 1st amendment clearly 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.” Sexuality is a form of speech, homosexuality should not be excluded. Also, the first section of the 14th amendment clearly states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A gay citizen of the United States cannot be denied equal rights; especially a right to liberty or property. A famous case, Lawrence v. Texas, started because of a supposed “weapons disturbance” in a private residence. However, Tyron Garner and John Lawrence were engaging in an intimate sexual conduct and was arrested at Lawrence’s Houston apartment. This was clearly in violation of the 14th amendment as a Texas statute forbid two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual conduct. However, the case was won by Lawrence as “the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.” Treating people fair seems to be a goal of the constitution. Instead, America is relying on social norms not laws, to ensure that people are treated fairly. Homosexuals should be given the same exact rights and liberty as Heterosexual citizens, regardless of sexual preference rather than social standpoints.

After consideration of pornography, abortion, and gay rights and their protection by the 1st Amendment, it is logical to conclude that regardless of social standings, these controversial issues are under the provisions of the 1st and other amendments. Whether it’s a gay man asking for his right to marry, a man enjoying his pornography tools freely, or a woman aborting her child due to certain circumstances, these are all citizens of the United States, ultimately giving them protection for their liberty, freedom, and rights.
 
The 1st Amendment forbids Congress from enacting laws that would regulate speech or press before publication or punish after publication. At various times, many states passed laws in contradiction to the freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment; whereas the people of the United States claim to be protected by the amendment but rather contradicts themselves and pass off on a certain belief rather than what the government legislates. Publication of pornography, abortion, and Gay rights are common references to the First Amendment and its limitations. The amendment’s duality sparked the controversies surrounding pornographic publications, abortion, and gay rights. The First Amendment protects the liberty and freedom of residents of the United States therefore the publication of pornography, abortion, and gay rights should be protected by the amendment’s legalities; regardless of religious and popular beliefs.

Pornography has been the topic of discussion in the court systems for years. Many would like to see legislation against it and software to filter it. The problem is it is not that easy and making laws against it would pose an issue against the First Amendment. There have many issues brought up on the grounds that it is demoralizing to women and is filth for the eyes of children. However, there are far worse things children have been exposed to; such as violence, drugs, and etcetera. Freedom of press was created to protect any publication and its content. Pornography is protected by this rule however modified so it would only be accessible to the proper audience. An There are numerous reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the First Amendment. There is not any harm done by pornography. As stated before, pornography is not harmful to anyone if distributed correctly, as pornographic work can help people in reassuring their preference about sexuality. Essentially, the publication of pornography should be under the provisions of the First Amendment under certain limitations, as its censorship would be in complete violation of the Amendment.

As stated before, the Amendment protects the liberty of its people. It should be applied for women who choose to abort. Abortion is one of the greatest controversial issues facing the United States and the rest of the world. Abortions are usually/believed to be used if a woman has been a victim of rape, incest, and/or if the woman’s life is in grave peril. These issues referenced, women should be given the privacy of their personal life, wherein abortion falls in category. If the Supreme Court holds a case against a woman and her choice for abortion, the Supreme Court has violated a woman’s right to privacy, which is protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and by several parts of the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment in the Constitution states, “no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Depriving them of an abortion would be depriving them of possible life and property (if you consider an unborn baby property of the mother). The court said that states may not interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion. For example, in the Roe v. Wade 1973 case, “Her life did not appear to be threatened by a continuation of the pregnancy, so no legal abortion was possible in Texas”. If a woman wants to abort, she should have full responsibility for her choice as it is her unborn baby (could be interpreted as property from a legal standpoint). With the plethora of privacy issues facing courts, the time for an amendment specifying the inalienable right to privacy is needed. No other factors should stop the woman from aborting, a man simply cannot choose for the woman to abort or not. Women’s privacy and liberty should be respected by anyone, as the 1st and 14th amendments legally protect a woman’s liberty and privacy over her life, regardless of outside interference.

Homosexuality, such an issue causing uproar in the United States, or any part of the world for that matter. Should gays have the same rights of equity in property and practice as exist in heterosexual communities? Absolutely. If the constitution promises equality before the law, there is no justification that clears right for any member of our society. Homosexuals are seeking for equal rights, not special rights. The 1st amendment clearly 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.” Sexuality is a form of speech, homosexuality should not be excluded. Also, the first section of the 14th amendment clearly states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A gay citizen of the United States cannot be denied equal rights; especially a right to liberty or property. A famous case, Lawrence v. Texas, started because of a supposed “weapons disturbance” in a private residence. However, Tyron Garner and John Lawrence were engaging in an intimate sexual conduct and was arrested at Lawrence’s Houston apartment. This was clearly in violation of the 14th amendment as a Texas statute forbid two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual conduct. However, the case was won by Lawrence as “the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.” Treating people fair seems to be a goal of the constitution. Instead, America is relying on social norms not laws, to ensure that people are treated fairly. Homosexuals should be given the same exact rights and liberty as Heterosexual citizens, regardless of sexual preference rather than social standpoints.

After consideration of pornography, abortion, and gay rights and their protection by the 1st Amendment, it is logical to conclude that regardless of social standings, these controversial issues are under the provisions of the 1st and other amendments. Whether it’s a gay man asking for his right to marry, a man enjoying his pornography tools freely, or a woman aborting her child due to certain circumstances, these are all citizens of the United States, ultimately giving them protection for their liberty, freedom, and rights.

If you're going to copy/paste things from other sources, you should include a link.

Pornography -- The Pornography Debate
 
So my question is:
How far can the government of the United States go in legislating restraints to protect the "general welfare" without abrogating or violating the elements of individual civil liberty? How far can individuals press existing laws to challenge or change time honored principles of statutory law, common law, and equity without jeopardizing the "general welfare" and "civil liberty" of the majority in society?
There is a -lot- of case law regarding this.
 
Alright, so after reading articles about pornography, abortion, and homosexuality; a thought came to me.

I'm sure everyone here knows what the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights is.

"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."


So my question is:
How far can the government of the United States go in legislating restraints to protect the "general welfare" without abrogating or violating the elements of individual civil liberty?

Well, to start, the first amendment has nothing to do with popular speech but is intended to protect UNpopular speech. I would take it at it's word : Censorship is ILLEGAL.

Really though, in todays society, free speech is more just a lip service term in that you're free to talk about anything.... BUT the SECOND they established the first 'FREE-SPEECH ZONE' the government said : "You do NOT have free speech UNLESS you are within the confines of these zones... and once you start making exceptions to free speech, you weaken it untill eventuall free speech will become 'you can discuss anything that's been pre-approuved'.


How far can individuals press existing laws to challenge or change time honored principles of statutory law, common law, and equity without jeopardizing the "general welfare" and "civil liberty" of the majority in society?

"Those that would sacrifice a little freedom for a little security will lose both."

Consider with reference to:

Pornography and freedom of the press:
Is the publication of pornography within the provisions of the 1st amendment, or does it fall under censorship rule?

Pornography is all about contracts with consenting adults... as for the preventing minors from accessing it, is about the best compromize between allowing the first amendment right to produce pornography, while protecting the children.

As long as the pornography doesn't break other laws (ex: beastiality, child porn, etc) there is no legal recourse in which this should be censored.

Abortion and the right to life:
What are the limits to privacy, liberty, happiness, and the right to life?


The right to life... at what point are you considered a human being?? If the answer is 'at conception' then abortion should be illegal (not to mention immoral)... Yes yes don't place laws on a womans body... IMO, abortion should be a charge of murder for the doctor and accessory to murder for the woman. If you don't want the baby, use contraceptives, or get an adoption.

It's not like going back to the BK to return your burger cause it's made wrong...

However, if the answer is 'at birth' then abortions would be seen as LEGAL up to the point of birth since legally soeajubg the unborn baby 'doesn't count'.

Gay rights and homosexual conduct under law:
Should gays have the same rights of equity in property and practice as exist in heterosexual community, why or why not?

In terms of 'civil unions' I believe that homosexuals should have the right to enter a marriage contract.

However, to force churches to perform same-sex wedding services is restricting the rights of those practising that religion by stating 'You MUST accept homosecuel weddings regardless of what your church doctrine says on the issue.' also restricts the free speech of the church forcing them to 'remove' anti-homosexual messages from the religion.
 
Pornography and freedom of the press: Is the publication of pornography within the provisions of the 1st amendment, or does it fall under censorship rule?

Pornography isn't anyone's business, so long as minor children are prevented from gaining access.

Today's standards seem to provide adequate protections without onerous burdens on the pornographer.


Abortion and the right to life:
What are the limits to privacy, liberty, happiness, and the right to life?

The fetus is distinct person. It has a right to life, and that right trumps any right the incubator may feel she has to kill it. Murder is not a right.

Gay rights and homosexual conduct under law: Should gays have the same rights of equity in property and practice as exist in heterosexual community, why or why not?

Yes, of course, including the freedom to be married.
 
I think much of what we base this upon can be found in the opinion delivered by Justice Reed per UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS v. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).

"Of course, it is accepted constitutional doctrine that these fundamental human rights are not absolutes. The requirements of residence and age must be met. The essential rights of the First Amendment in some instances are subject to the elemental need for order without which the guarantees of civil rights to others would be a mockery."

Although he goes on to disparage the Ninth Amendment I feel his view on the First is pretty accurate.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
Good questions. There's not really a generic answer, as it depends on what you're referring to.




We have to know it when we see it, thanks to Justice Potter.



These aren't really about the 1st Amendment so much as they are about the 14th. Both questions are also up in the air in many ways.

The govenerment will make no law forbidding you from talking about abortion and gay rights.

Now getting an abortion or gay rights are not protected.
 
How far can the government of the United States go in legislating restraints to protect the "general welfare" without abrogating or violating the elements of individual civil liberty?

Not far at all

How far can individuals press existing laws to challenge or change time honored principles of statutory law, common law, and equity without jeopardizing the "general welfare" and "civil liberty" of the majority in society?

As far as they dare.

Pornography and freedom of the press:
Is the publication of pornography within the provisions of the 1st amendment, or does it fall under censorship rule?

Protected, why is this the government's job. They can enforce contract and ensure that people were of consenting age, but that's about it. The government has no rightful say in this.

Abortion and the right to life:
What are the limits to privacy, liberty, happiness, and the right to life?

Right to life trumps most everything (barring situations where another is threatening or infringing upon the life of another). With abortion, it's a bit tricky as there is no real defining point of when "life" begins. Is it conception? Is it when the cells have divided and diversified to the point of being recognizably human? Is it when the child becomes viable outside the womb? No real hard cutoff point.


Gay rights and homosexual conduct under law:

Should gays have the same rights of equity in property and practice as exist in heterosexual community, why or why not?

As it currently stands, yes. Everyone has a right to unlimited contract. Things like marriage are State contract, and thus if two men which to enter that official, legal contract they should be allowed to.
 
If you're going to copy/paste things from other sources, you should include a link.

Pornography -- The Pornography Debate

And if you're going to copy/paste someone else's essay, it should at least be tailored to the topic you present. :doh

Not much First Amendment stuff involved with abortion or gay rights, at least not in the way presented.
 
Back
Top Bottom