Briefly on the First Amendment

The First Amendment is a license from government that allows citizens to opine on the actions of government without fear of some punitive action in response.
 
Underscore, license. It is revocable. Somewhere, a brilliant government lawyer has already written a brief in support of such a revocation should that action become necessary.
 
The First Amendment is nothing to worship or flaunt as sacred and inviolable. Just because you or your pappy put on a uniform and fired a few rounds on a battlefield in the name of that right doesn’t give it anymore substance. The mere fact that government gave it to you should be a red flag, because they can yank it away from you just as fast.
 
The real issue, as in any other right, especially human or civil rights, is why people believe they need the permission or blessing of a relatively small group of individuals to speak or simply to be? Giving any artificial entity the right to regulate what should be natural is the most disturbing idea of all.

About Alton Drew

Alton Drew brings a straight forward and insightful brand of political market intelligence. Alton Drew graduated from the Florida State University with a Bachelor of Science in economics and political science (1984); a Master of Public Administration (1993); and a Juris Doctor (1999). You can also follow Alton Drew on Twitter @altondrew.
This entry was posted in American society, democracy, free speech, government, human rights, libertarianism, liberty, media, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Briefly on the First Amendment

  1. kenski2013 says:

    “The real issue, as in any other right, especially human or civil rights, is why people believe they need the permission or blessing of a relatively small group of individuals to speak or simply to be? Giving any artificial entity the right to regulate what should be natural is the most disturbing idea of all.”

    I think the intent of the First Amendment was to establish freedom of speech and of the press as legally binding on the government that it cannot interfere with those freedoms, not to give citizens “permission” to have them. As has been pointed out quite a bit recently, leaders who want to be dictators often attack these freedoms first, as part of their overall desire and plan to be dictator. There is a long and ugly history of this kind of situation.

    Obviously said rights are not absolute: if you yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and people are harmed as a result, you may be criminally liable, or if you threaten the President of the United States, the Secret Service may pay you a visit to see what is going on.

    Also, it’s clear that an independent judiciary and access to legal representation may be required to uphold these rights if the government tries to limit them or take them away–the checks and balances written into the US Constitution are part of the protection of these rights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s