Pop Quiz - Name the 5 Things Protected by the First Amendment

[DamianTV]

Do your best to do it from your own MEMORY and see how you do! There are 5 things listed in the First Amendment, could you name them all?

[Swordsmyth]

Freedom of speech, Freedom of religion, Freedom of the Press, The right to petition for redress of grievances, the right to assemble.

I'll go check now.

[Swordsmyth]

Freedom of speech, Freedom of religion, Freedom of the Press, The right to petition for redress of grievances, the right to assemble.

I'll go check now.
:D
DamianTV do you want me to delete my answer?

[RJB]

I hate to admit, but I always forget addressing of grievances and right to assemble. I think out of laziness, my brain lumps those two in with the other three.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Peaceful Expression.

[Swordsmyth]

I hate to admit, but I always forget addressing of grievances and right to assemble. I think out of laziness, my brain lumps those two in with the other three.
Those and the Freedom of the Press are kind of just extensions of Freedom of Speech.

[DamianTV]

:D
DamianTV do you want me to delete my answer?

Naa, its a good reference. Most people dont know them all, which is alright, but the important thing is to list them so we can learn what we dont know. Then others can learn, and see by comparing to what is protected to what has already been lost.

[CCTelander]

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion (forbids Congress from establishing a state religion and protects free exercise of religion), Right to Peaceably Assemble and the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Uh, it protects against unwanted pregnancy? That's why we have Planned Parenthood?

[Anti Federalist]

Didn't have to look:

Religion
Press
Speech
Right to assemble
Right to petition government for redress

[DamianTV]

Peaceful Expression.

Expression is not always peaceful, at least in what is being discussed but not its form. Such as talking about war. Using the term "Peaceful Expression" creates an unintended limit on what can be said, thus, if we talk about war, that can be made illegal. Also, Im not talking about "we should go to war" or condoning violence.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Expression is not always peaceful, at least in what is being discussed but not its form. Such as talking about war. Using the term "Peaceful Expression" creates an unintended limit on what can be said, thus, if we talk about war, that can be made illegal. Also, Im not talking about "we should go to war" or condoning violence.

I could express myself by murdering your sister and putting her head on a pike. That is violent expression - when you express yourself by violating the Rights of others.

In this world, you can only express yourself violently or peacefully. Talking is not a violent act. Only in the eyes of a tyrant. Peaceful expression aka expressing yourself without violating the Rights of others is articulated in the 1st Amendment but it is given to us by nature and nature’s god.

[Danke]

Doesn't apply anymore.

[PAF]

The answer is ZERO.

Anybody who cherishes liberty knows that the list of 5 in the 1st are simply an outline for government to take notice. It is up to me, you, the People, to protect our Natural Rights.

Words on a page are just that. They can’t “protect” anybody.

[jkr]

The freedom to yell at the top of my lungs about whatever to whomever I need, without reprisal

[donnay]

The first amendment protects: unpopular speech, unpopular religion, unpopular press...which allows us to protest all and shine a light on them.

[brushfire]

It prevents you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

[Slave Mentality]

This is a better discussion in a free speech zone. Properly permitted, of course.

At least the government gets to decide what religions get 501c status.

[Philhelm]

Trick question. Only the Second Amendment can protect rights.

[TheTexan]

Freedom of speech, Freedom of religion, Freedom of the Press, The right to petition for redress of grievances, the right to assemble.

I'll go check now.

Close. But you forgot to include "with the proper permits"

[TheTexan]

Trick question. Only the Second Amendment can protect rights.

It protects our right to go Hunting.

[Stratovarious]

What good is either without the other?
Which would you rather have if they were voting tonight and repealing one of them at midnight...

-1

-2

[Gumba of Liberty]

It prevents you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Nope - that’s judicial tyranny. That’s a Supreme Court interpretation during the Progressive Era. The same fallible Supreme Court this ruled Africans aren’t US citizens (Dred Scott v Sanford) and the States had the power to sterlize “imbeciles” (Buck v Bell). Not a good track record of siding with Inalienable, Natural Rights.

[Swordsmyth]

Nope - that’s judicial tyranny. That’s a Supreme Court interpretation during the Progressive Era. The same fallible Supreme Court this ruled Africans aren’t US citizens (Dred Scott v Sanford) and the States had the power to sterlize “imbeciles” (Buck v Bell). Not a good track record of siding with Inalienable, Natural Rights.
They were right about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The 1stA doesn't protect fraud or libel either.

[Anti Globalist]

Freedom of speech, religion, and press.

[Gumba of Liberty]

They were right about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The 1stA doesn't protect fraud or libel either.

Not according to Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard. That should be up to the theater, should it not?

[Swordsmyth]

Not according to Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard. That should be up to the theater, should it not?
Should it be up to the theater if the person personally kills or injures the other guests?
If there is no fire then the liar who shouted that there is one is criminally liable for any damages to the other guests or the theater.

[H_H]

Name the 5 Things Protected by the First Amendment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531197-Pop-Quiz-Name-the-5-Things-Protected-by-the-First-Amendment)



Nothing.



Absolutely nothing.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB7mHxdHlRY

[H_H]

Freedom of Religion (forbids Congress from establishing a state religion and protects free exercise of religion)Technically says 'Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion.'

That is, just can't make any law on the subject, neither for nor against. It is up to the states. They could have an established state religion, ala Massachusetts, or total religious anarchy, ala Virginia. Just none of the Feds' business; can't get involved.

[Occam's Banana]

It prevents you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.


Nope - that’s judicial tyranny. That’s a Supreme Court interpretation during the Progressive Era. The same fallible Supreme Court this ruled Africans aren’t US citizens (Dred Scott v Sanford) and the States had the power to sterlize “imbeciles” (Buck v Bell). Not a good track record of siding with Inalienable, Natural Rights.


They were right about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
The 1stA doesn't protect fraud or libel either.

They may have been right, but it was for entirely the wrong reason ...

Holmes used the supposedly "unprotected speech" of "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" (his exact words) as an analogy for the supposedly "unprotected speech" of speaking out against the military draft during World War One. This is a terrible and utterly bogus analogy. because the former (dangerously disrupting a place of public commerce) has nothing to do with "speech" (except perhaps incidentally[1]), while the latter (openly criticizing government policy) has everything to do with it.



[1] "Falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" should not be tolerated. But causing a panic in a theater by falsely triggering a fire alarm without ever uttering a word should not be tolerated, either - and for exactly the same reasons, no more and no less. The fact that a verbal element is incidentally involved in the "shouting" scenario is irrelevant to the substance of the question. The issue of "speech" ("protected" or otherwise) simply does not enter into the matter.

[Swordsmyth]

They may have been right, but it was for entirely the wrong reason ...

Holmes used the supposedly "unprotected speech" of "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" (his exact words) as an analogy for the supposedly "unprotected speech" of speaking out against the military draft during World War One. This is a terrible and utterly bogus analogy. because the former (dangerously disrupting a place of public commerce) has nothing to do with "speech" (except perhaps incidentally[1]), while the latter (openly criticizing government policy) has everything to do with it.



[1] "Falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" should not be tolerated. But causing a panic in a theater by falsely triggering a fire alarm without ever uttering a word should not be tolerated, either - and for exactly the same reasons, no more and no less. The fact that a verbal element is incidentally involved in the "shouting" scenario is irrelevant to the substance of the question. The issue of "speech" ("protected" or otherwise) simply does not enter into the matter.
:up:

[DamianTV]

I could express myself by murdering your sister and putting her head on a pike. That is violent expression - when you express yourself by violating the Rights of others.

In this world, you can only express yourself violently or peacefully. Talking is not a violent act. Only in the eyes of a tyrant. Peaceful expression aka expressing yourself without violating the Rights of others is articulated in the 1st Amendment but it is given to us by nature and nature’s god.

And it also constitutes a Crime because there is a victim. And that is utter crap that inflicting harm upon another human being is a form of "speech". Inanimate objects that you own, do what you want with. You can burn a flag as long as you own it, as well as retain the Right to Repair, things like your car or smartphone also. If you dont own it, that also constitutes a crime.

Freedom of Speech is critical and absolutely necessary to expose those who do commit crimes against us, financial crimes, crimes against our country, crimes against the People by exploitation of our Laws. Freedom of Speech IS our very ability to expose those major criminals. By denying all ability to speak or communicate about their crimes is to bury the victims of the most ruthless criminals in our age under the rug by saying they can not speak of the crimes of which they are the victims.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Black Lives Matter, communist rallies, porn, profanity, and gay pride marches. But not hate speech.

[DamianTV]

Pride in your own race or gender or religion or chess club is a healthy sentiment so long as it does not come at the expense of others. What they have done is normalized the exclusion by making it at the expense of someone else. Expose people for genuine crimes that they cover up and bury, that is true Journalism, and why we desperately need the Freedom of Speech and Assembly so that we can peaceably discuss how to resolve our issues.

[tfurrh]

right to party

gotta fight for it

[Gumba of Liberty]

They may have been right, but it was for entirely the wrong reason ...

Holmes used the supposedly "unprotected speech" of "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" (his exact words) as an analogy for the supposedly "unprotected speech" of speaking out against the military draft during World War One. This is a terrible and utterly bogus analogy. because the former (dangerously disrupting a place of public commerce) has nothing to do with "speech" (except perhaps incidentally[1]), while the latter (openly criticizing government policy) has everything to do with it.



[1] "Falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" should not be tolerated. But causing a panic in a theater by falsely triggering a fire alarm without ever uttering a word should not be tolerated, either - and for exactly the same reasons, no more and no less. The fact that a verbal element is incidentally involved in the "shouting" scenario is irrelevant to the substance of the question. The issue of "speech" ("protected" or otherwise) simply does not enter into the matter.

I disagree. This is an example of judicial overreach. Here are a few questions for you:

What defines falsely? What if someone perceived the presence of smoke and yells fire? What if they are wrong? What defines crowded? What if someone yells fire in a half filled theater? What about an empty theater? What if someone yells fire in a crowded theater but it doesn’t cause a panic? What if someone yells “fire” but use it as the younger generation does now to mean “awesome” or “the best”?

How could theaters operate for thousands of years before the Supreme Court swooped in to save them from devious patrons?

Couldn’t the free market sort all this out without the need for government restrictions on speech in private venues?

You have my answer.

[Swordsmyth]

I disagree. This is an example of judicial overreach. Here are a few questions for you:

What defines falsely? What if someone perceived the presence of smoke and yells fire? What if they are wrong? What defines crowded? What if someone yells fire in a half filled theater? What about an empty theater? What if someone yells fire in a crowded theater but it doesn’t cause a panic? What if someone yells “fire” but use it as the younger generation does now to mean “awesome” or “the best”?

How could theaters operate for thousands of years before the Supreme Court swooped in to save them from devious patrons?

Couldn’t the free market sort all this out without the need for government restrictions on speech in private venues?

You have my answer.
You bring up all of the issues that the prosecution would have to deal in order to get a conviction with but that doesn't mean that deliberately causing a panic that resulted in the injury or death of others and damage to the theater wouldn't be a crime.

[Gumba of Liberty]

You bring up all of the issues that the prosecution would have to deal in order to get a conviction with but that doesn't mean that deliberately causing a panic that resulted in the injury or death of others and damage to the theater wouldn't be a crime.

On private property, the property owner has the Right to determine which speech is permissible and which is not, period. In a free country, under Natural Law, inciting a panic, where damage was done to the property, would be handled in civil not criminal court.

[Swordsmyth]

On private property, the property owner has the Right to determine which speech is permissible and which is not, period. In a free country, under Natural Law, inciting a panic, where damage was done to the property, would be handled in civil not criminal court.
No, a crime that harms others is a crime no matter where it takes place.
Does a property owner get to decide which guests may kill other guests?
Does a property owner get to decide which guests may rob other guests?
The theater owner could choose to not press charges for damage to the theater but he can't prevent prosecution for any harm that comes to his guests.

[Gumba of Liberty]

No, a crime that harms others is a crime no matter where it takes place.
Does a property owner get to decide which guests may kill other guests?
Does a property owner get to decide which guests may rob other guests?
The theater owner could choose to not press charges for damage to the theater but he can't prevent prosecution for any harm that comes to his guests.

Under your definition Ron Paul could be held criminally responsible for the conduct of his followers considering he “incited” then to act.

I stand with Paul, Rothbard, & Block...

Walter Block writes, “Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: ‘Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!’ and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. ‘Inciting to riot,’ therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime.”

In the case of the theater, you could make the case that the person yelling “fire” caused property damage but you can’t claim the man is responsible for murder. The person responsible for murder is the person who committed the actual physical violence not the person speaking.

[Swordsmyth]

Under your definition Ron Paul could be held criminally responsible for the conduct of his followers considering he “incited” then to act.
Ron did not tell a lie in order to cause a panic in which people were hurt.


I stand with Paul, Rothbard, & Block...

Walter Block writes, “Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: ‘Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!’ and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. ‘Inciting to riot,’ therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime.”
I disagree, an explicit instruction to burn, loot or kill is directly responsible for any burning, looting and killing which follows.


In the case of the theater, you could make the case that the person yelling “fire” caused property damage but you can’t claim the man is responsible for murder. The person responsible for murder is the person who committed the actual physical violence not the person speaking.
It might not be murder but it would be assault or at least negligent homicide if the person who yelled knew there was no fire.

[Occam's Banana]

I disagree. This is an example of judicial overreach.

Disagree with what? :confused: I never said or implied that it was not "an example of judicial overreach". Just the opposite, in fact ...


What defines falsely? What if someone perceived the presence of smoke and yells fire? What if they are wrong? What defines crowded? What if someone yells fire in a half filled theater? What about an empty theater? What if someone yells fire in a crowded theater but it doesn’t cause a panic? What if someone yells “fire” but use it as the younger generation does now to mean “awesome” or “the best”?

Those are all good questions. And in any particular case, they would have to be answered - and a decision would have to be made as to what (if anything) was to be done about it.

My point is that even if someone deliberately and maliciously started a dangerous panic by falsely shouting "fire" in a theater[1], then (contrary to Holmes) there would not be any kind of "free speech" issue involved.


How could theaters operate for thousands of years before the Supreme Court swooped in to save them from devious patrons?

SCOTUS has not (yet) "swooped in to save [theaters] from devious patrons". As I noted in my previous post, the whole "shouting fire" thing was just a bogus analogy Oliver Wendell Holmes used to justify prohibiting speech against the draft. So far as I know, SCOTUS has never actually made a ruling on the shouting of "fire" (falsely or otherwise) in theaters (crowded or otherwise) ...



[1] Holmes never described his analogical theater as being "crowded". Others have inserted that bit of detail.

[oyarde]

Doesn't apply anymore.

For now you are still allowed freedom of religion .

[DamianTV]

The Backdoor to Liberty is to take Responsibility away from the people. When we have Freedom, we also have Responsibility for our own actions, that our actions and words to not cause harm to others. We also have a Responsibility to hold those with positions of power accountable for unlawful actions, which means first exposing them. Without the Right and the Power to expose their unlawful actions, Justice becomes Criminal Will, silencing its victims and accusers.