English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

2007-03-30 03:13:45 · 8 answers · asked by eM-eM 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

8 answers

It's the first Amendment to the U.S Constitution. To describe what it "means" would literally take volumes of paper (or the elctronic equivalent) and weeks to write. Google or Wiki "First Amendment" and you can get some idea.

The words have been interpreted by literally hundreds of Supreme Court cases with various fact scenarios.

Let's see if I can give the 2 cent summary:

The first clauses are the religion clauses the "establishment clause" and the "Free exercise clause." These apply to both state and federal government action. Congress cannot "establish" a religion, which right now means that they must act in a religiously neutral manner, cannot "endorse" one religion over another, and cannot compel people to practice one religion over another (and, in some cases, religion over non-religion). Thus, it's generally unconstitutional for a government to require church attendance, mandatory prayer in primary school led by faculty, put up singularly religious displays (like the 10 commandments in a court, or a nativity scene by itself in a part) or teach creationism in school.

The "free exercise" clause requires a government to allow a citizen to practice his religion reasonably unburdened from government interference. That means that the government cannot say that you can't practice in a particular way. However, religiously neutral laws of neutral application will be inforced, even if the law affects religious practice (like, for example, peyote prohibition, even though Native Americans use it in their religious services, or prohibitions on murder, even if some religions want to sacrifice humans). Recently, however, the Supreme Court has recognized that a government MAY give religious exemptions from generally applicable laws without running afoul of the Establishment Clause.

The next clauses are related to speech -- speech, press, and petition clauses. There are so many avenues of speech, it's hard to write just a few paragraphs.
But first, the Speech clause does not apply to some forms of verbal communication -- libel (untrue statements harming a person's reputation and, int he case of public figures, published with "actual malice"), "fighting words," "incitement" (i.e. encouraging immediate violent overthrow of the government or other violent activities), and obscenity (patent display of sex acts, genitals, or excretion without any serious artistic, political, scientific, or literary merit with the work taken as a whole) are not included. But some non-verbal communication (like flag burning, donating money to a political candidate or wearing certain articles of clothing) may be included. Generally, courts protect political expression most closely, although other forms of communication, like commercial speech, have been increasingly protected, too. Governments cannot, generally, put in place "content-based" or "viewpoint based" restrictions on speech, i.e., favoring one topic over another or favoring one viewpoint on a topic over another. However, "content neutral" regulations, like requirements for everyone to get a permit before they can march in a parade, are generally acceptable if reasonable.

The press right has not been interpreted to provide any more protection than the speech right (under the federal constitution). Thus, there is no "reporter's privilege" recognized in the law... which is why reporters can, in some states, go to jail for refusing to release a source.

The petition clause, along with the "right of association" in the First, Fourth, Fourteenth amendments, allows people to peaceably assemble and demand things of their government. Also incorporated is the right to join certain groups anonymously (like the ACLU or the NAACP, back in the days when there were hunts for anyone who was pro-black or anti-government).

Enough explanation?

2007-03-30 03:43:39 · answer #1 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0 0

OK it means that there shall be no laws restricting the right of people to peaceably assemble, no law against people telling the govt that they are jackholes, no law giving State control over the media and that people have freedom of speech.

Now the tricky one is the religion one..it basically says Congress cannot make laws about religion which basically forbids govt from touching religion. Now since this is how I and the Supreme Court see it it bars religious icons from public venues like courtrooms, schools, etc.

However, as anyone can tell you the religion part we violate all day, every day and we only enforce it randomly..which is kinda stupid but hey whatever..it makes for awesome fights.

2007-03-30 03:32:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Congress shall not make a law just because a religious group wants it to be a law.

Congress shall not outlaw any religeons.

Congress shall not interfer with the freedom of speech.

and the people have a right to protest..

2007-03-30 03:24:34 · answer #3 · answered by Kerry R 5 · 0 0

Just basically means that everyone has the freedom to say what they want, about whatever they believe in and with however many people they choose. They can't tell you that you can't pray or worship in public and you can gather together to do it (peacably) and that the press can take as many pictures of it as they'd like. :)

2007-04-06 21:59:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It means the State cannot make everyone worship in a specific way, and that the State can't keep people from worshipping in the way they choose. (It also means the State cannot erect religious symbols on public property, or demand the removal of religious symbols from private property.)

It means that people may express their opinions, in public or private (but not to lie, libel or slander).

It means that, if the Government is screwing you, you have the right to ask nicely that it stop.

2007-03-30 03:21:49 · answer #5 · answered by Yesugi 5 · 3 0

Do you mean which you meant the be conscious "mean" in its unique which means or are you too mean to fulfill my mean standards? Oh, i'll start moaning approximately your blending up all those m-words...

2016-10-01 22:42:02 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It means what it says. Are you being facetious?

2007-03-30 03:26:05 · answer #7 · answered by open4one 7 · 0 0

im not sure...

2007-03-30 03:17:13 · answer #8 · answered by Chuck Norris follower! 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers