First Amendment - Freedom of Speech?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti
In reading the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, you’ll notice the first thing that is mentioned is that the government has no right to mandate a nationalized religion. This is because many of the home countries of the colonist had mandated religions and were trying to police that mandate from over-seas. The rest of the amendment supports the freedom to fight for your own religion. If there are issues, it allows you to argue your freedom and retain the right to practice your religion. So, why is it always refered to as ’Freedom of Speech’?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt1.html
I don’t believe any American should not be able to speak their mind, but why would anyone have the RIGHT? My point is that someone speaking would have to earn the opportunity to be heard. The Press, blogs or anyone shouldn’t be required reading. But many Americans, Artists, Protestors and even Terrorist feel like they are owed the RIGHT to speak and be transmitted through the Nation. The First Amendment has even been used as a crutch to burn the American Flag, which represents this Freedom. Everything is protected!
On the other hand, there are press groupies who feel they have a RIGHT to control the voice of the opposition. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck,… should be countered by a contrasting voice. Does this “Fairness Doctrine” even have any explaination of being justified? Do you want an insane person responding to a sane one?
Becareful of what you wish for; you just might get it.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
That’s a good point, in that while we have the right to say what we want, we have not right to be heard.
We also do not have a right to force someone else to facilitate our ability to be heard. If we want to start our own blog, newspaper, radio station or TV station, we have the freedom to pursue such an endeavor (within the bounds of financing, permitting constraints, etc.).
You have a right to own a car, but you have no right to carjack.
That is essentially what the Orwellian “Fairness Doctrine” would accomplish.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
This raises several interesting points of discussion given the refusal of the New York Times to print an op-ed piece by Senator McCain. It was written in response to a piece by Senator Obama on Iraq that they printed with no question. I understand they asked Senator McCain to re-write his to “mirror” the op-ed by Obama. These are the same people who champion the “Fairness Doctrine”? Oh, and what about the religion of “Global Warming” being mandated by the government? Also championed by the NYT.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
I believe we are creating too many additions to the constitution. We shouldn’t have had to write the 15th Amendment. But the problem wasn’t with the constitution, it was with the people who don’t read the constitution.
I want to post on all 27.