2006-10-10 06:41:09 · 6 answers · asked by star 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
No.
2006-10-10 06:43:04 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you are asking a question like this you are assuming we know which war you are talking about, which example of "rallying support," which first amendment right.
If you are referring to the war in Iraq, the US government has just as much right to rally support as the US people have the right to protest the war. Asking for support has nothing to do with constitutional rights. If the US government was stopping people from "legal" protest then they would be interfering with their first amendment rights to assemble peaceably and their freedom of speech.
2006-10-10 06:57:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont believe that attempts to rally support necessarily interfered with our first amendment rights. However, the after effects of the "war on terror" definitely imposed threats to our first amendment rights. Such as the biggest issue, the patriot act. The Patriot Act definitely takes away freedoms that were given in the first amendment. Yet those who were actually in support of the "war on terror" used the fact that, in order to insure security, the governed must submit a few rights to the government. But one must realize what rights were given up in order to secure this false sense of security. Now, when one thinks about it, the government did a great job of getting people in the mindset of anti -arabic, which then leads to anti-middle east. The countries of the world have always looked to the middle east for its luscious natural resources, and by getting people to think that all those of arabic ethnicity are "bad terrorists" then the government would have a better chance of near full support for taking over those middle eastern nations. One can observe this by thinking about their initial reaction of the sight of a person of arabic ethnicity. Even those who believe theirselves to be the most not racial, can see theirselves thinking "this person is going to kill me."
2006-10-10 07:02:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as the government did not restrict free speech, then no, it did not. The constitution does not prevent the government from it's own speech, and it doesn't even require the government to be truthful.
2006-10-10 06:45:45 · answer #4 · answered by ³√carthagebrujah 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question
2016-08-23 08:32:02 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a very interesting topic
2016-08-08 16:52:46 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋