If an individual is punished for something they say, what happened to the 1st Amendment we're so proud of?

Answer 1

It depends on where you are punished. If you are punished at school or work, it is a contractual issue. You agree to a contract or code of behavior when you start a job or enroll in school. If you break that contract, you can be punished.

The law says you must go to school if you are a minor, but it doesn't specify where, so there is some choice there as far as the parents are concerned.

When you are in a place of business, you go by whatever rules of the establishment. It is a private entity and not owned or managed by the government. If you break their rules, they can ask you to leave, and if you don't leave, you won't be punished for free speech, but for trespassing.

Outside of private entities and their right to impose restrictions, there is the matter of public safety and order. You cannot yell fire in a crowded building because people may panic and trample each other to death.

You cannot stand in the town square and yell racist words. Oh, you can try, but certain things might happen. You may be the victim of immediate retaliation by one or more people who are offended. Or you may be arrested for disorderly conduct. That is usually defined as conduct that creates an exagerated disturbance or which may be likely to result in immediate retaliation by others.

You cannot make specific threats to harm another person. Non-specific and conditional threats are often overlooked, though. Like if you tell someone that if they do something you will mess them up. Very often, that may only result in a warning.

Then there is speech related to harm of a wide-spread nature. You can't talk about making or using bombs, going on a massacre, hijacking a plane, etc., without getting arrested for conspiracy and making terroristic threats.

As for the above poster, actually, we do have the right to bare our chests, according to the courts. It must be done for political purposes, though. Artistic and educational purposes might be covered as well. During the 80's when there were leaking implants, the results of the medical problems were shown on television, scars and all.

Answer 2

Actually, if I read it right, it's income tax that violates the Constitution and that no exemptions should be required at all. I believe the intent of the Constitution was to preserve religious freedom by keeping the government's nose out of it. But when some politicians decided they wanted Americans to have the benefits of income taxes (only fairly recently) it had to make a lot of exemptions and loopholes for charitable activities and for their buddies to avoid tax. So now, the government gets to define what religion is and whether any particular religion measures up - and this definitely does violate the 1st Amendment. I don't know that any recognized religion has any type of exemption regarding criminal acts just because their religion believes in it. Mormons would like to have many wives but the law doesn't let them. Another religion doesn't like some medical procedures yet they have even been forced to undergo them at various times. Maybe there are religions out there that think their crops will grow if they sacrifice a virgin or something and I hope that's not allowed. I do seem to recall seeing something about Indians being allowed to run traditional ceremonies where they ate peyote. Not sure about that. But I'm pretty sure your idea about a cocaine snorting religion isn't going to fly unless there is a pretty substantial commission in there for the govt. If you put a bunch of politicians in a room and ask them to work something out, they are bound to come out with something that is stupid and doesn't follow common sense. We shouldn't be surprised about that.

Answer 3

The First Amendment rights only extend until they interfere with other people's rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is a real fire) because the panic you create could injure other people.

Recently, the current fashion is to ignore the First Amendment except for those people whose opinion you support. If you allow the right to life people to speak you have to allow the opposition to speak a well. You just can’t give out the freedoms that you want, to the groups that you want. It is an all or nothing deal. Thus the statement, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it.” When I joined the US Army I had to swear and oath to defend the Constitution so our Bill of Rights is something that I have sworn to give my life to protect. I was never called upon to do so, or to put my life in great danger, but if called upon I know that I would go and that I would have done what I had to do.

The problem is that our modern society has become more polarized. The press and people like Rush Limbaugh have a lot to do with that. When you talk with an ultra conservative or an ultra liberal then you are talking with someone who already has his or her opinion formed and is ready to give it to you in a nice sound bite (which comes through a press story nicely). When you talk with someone who has an open mind, like a moderate then they have to listen to you and actually think about what you said and then form an opinion. This takes so long and unrehearsed phrases rarely make a good sound bite. Thus we are hearing more and more from the outer political wings. Since people hear so much of this they form their opinions based on this and think that the rest of the world is thinking in these extremes. Thus you have two sides shouting at each other trying to shout down the other side and not listening to each other.

People like Rush Limbaugh just increase this by concentrating more time on their point of views and building a lager audience to hear them. I am not criticizing Mr. Limbaugh as much as I am criticizing all those like him and the system that lets this happen. I can’t shut these outer wing people up, because I defend their right to speak, I just wish the news media concentrated more on the middle of the road people so we can hear their opinions as well.

Answer 4

You don't give many facts! Is this an actual situation, or "just trying to stir a debate?"

As many others before me have said ... if the Federal government ain't involved, it ain't a Constitunional issue!

If you are being "punished" by a non governmental agency, like an employer, for your political views ... Too bad, so sad! You have no recourse! Just "suck it up" and find another job!

Answer 5

You need to understand what the first amendment actually says. As long as it's not the government banning the speech, the first amendment is not applicable.

Answer 6

The first amendment rights to free speech has been getting eroded for decades... free speech in America what a joke... unless of course you have a gun and want everyone else to have a gun
The right to bare arms they call it... in my opinion we'd all be better off and safer if we had the right to bare t1ts instead.

Answer 7

By whom were you punished? the government? if so, what did you say? They have ruled that the 1st amendment is not absolute, such as inciting a riot, or causing unreasonable panic.

Answer 8

If it wasn't the federal government, a federal law enforcement agency, or a federally funded public service, then you can't use the First as a defense. The First only limits the government from supressing your speech, NOT private citizens or entities.

Answer 9

9/11 my friend. Its tragic that we stand on this pedestal of liberty in front of the rest of the global community but the reality is that we can't say what we choose to because of politics.

Answer 10

The first ammendment has nothing to do with an employment agreement a disc jockey has with his employer.