# Correct my understanding of the First Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 13, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631 "2014-03-13T17:46:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/41 "2014-03-14T06:32:24Z")
> [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > Its literal text is irrelevant. What matters is the principle it enshrines: ensuring that people can express their views openly, without fear. > > The literal text merely represents a late eighteenth-century understanding of the possible sources of repression against religious liberty. Now that we know that non-state actors can have just as much of a deleterious effect as the state can, however, we’re perfectly justified in limiting the acts non-state actors can take against freedom of religious expression too. > > The principle is more important than the literal text, which the critical-thought-free such as the OP want to decontextualize and thus render meaningless. > > Sure, we can amend it so that the literal text reflects the principle as its real-world implications are understood. Or, we can say “fuck you” to the tyranny of the past, and start doing the right thing _right now_. > > Moral, freedom-loving people will choose the latter. Substance is more important than form. I disagree. The First Amendment only controls what the government does. It has no power over private individuals or organizations. The OP was correct in saying that the nuns could not violate the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/42 "2014-03-14T11:50:48Z")
> [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > Actually, no, the Constitution in fact does _not_ say that the state cannot prohibit Joe Bob Jim Jack from executing seventeen virgins every hour at half-past in order to appease the Dread Arch-Demon Blagoblagabat so that he won’t destroy the world in the final phase of the Great Cosmic Battle of Plamagen. Am I the only one who gets so confused by complicated sentences that I sometimes count negation words to see if they’re odd or even in number? In this example: “the Constitution … not … state cannot … prohibit Joe Bob Jim Jack from [executing seventeen virgins every hour at half-past in order to appease the Dread Arch-Demon Blagoblagabat] so … won’t destroy the world …” There are an even number (4) of negations, so _Constitution –\> destroy world_. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Damn. We’re all doomed. Ninja’ed! ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/43 "2014-03-14T12:26:04Z")
I like freedom of speech. Trying bringing in a sculpture of Mickey Mouse into the States that wasn’t licensed with Disney Corporation. Try viewing one of their movies at a theater at a time when they haven’t “released” it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/44 "2014-03-14T12:31:21Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > I like freedom of speech. Trying bringing in a sculpture of Mickey Mouse into the States that wasn’t licensed with Disney Corporation. Try viewing one of their movies at a theater at a time when they haven’t “released” it. Sounds like you want freedom of theft. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/45 "2014-03-14T12:50:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Well, if this is the case, then Congress cannot take any action to stop it. If, as you’re claiming, Obamacare is a religion then Congress is explicitly forbidden by the First Amendment from interfering with the free exercise of it. You’ve just declared that opposing the ACA is unconstitutional. Don’t be ridiculous. Congress passed Obamacare in the first place. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/46 "2014-03-14T13:49:56Z")
> [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > Its literal text is irrelevant. What matters is the principle it enshrines: ensuring that people can express their views openly, without fear. If the Little Sisters of the Poor and other groups are fearing that they’ll be heavily fined for expressing their religious views, that would clearly be a violation of that principle. > [@](#): > > The literal text merely represents a late eighteenth-century understanding of the possible sources of repression against religious liberty. Now that we know that non-state actors can have just as much of a deleterious effect as the state can, however, we’re perfectly justified in limiting the acts non-state actors can take against freedom of religious expression too. How can a “non-state actor” have as much of a deleterious effects as the state on religious liberty? In 17th and 18th century Europe, states generally had a deleterious effect on religious liberty. They often had big, scary guys with weapons who would physically harm people who practiced certain religions. At the very least they would, like England, legally restrict the privileges of people who didn’t join the established church. The First Amendment was written to ensure that such things would never happen in the USA. Non-state actors, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, have no such powers. They do not have a bunch of big, scary guys with weapons to enforce their decrees. They cannot prevent anyone from voting, holding office, attending college, or anything else. All they can do is make decisions that affect themselves. No one works for them other than those who voluntarily choose to do so. Anyone who doesn’t like their policies is free to avoid them. Thus your statement that “we know that non-state actors can have just as much of a deleterious effect as the state can” looks pretty silly. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/47 "2014-03-14T14:06:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > How can a “non-state actor” have as much of a deleterious effects as the state on religious liberty? When you change “non-state actors” to the singular, you absolutely change the dynamic. A single non-state actor is probably not going to have a huge effect. But non-state actors tend to act in the aggregate, and in the aggregate they can, through discrimination, have some pretty powerful effects. I’m not willing to say they can have a worse effect than the state, but only because that’s not the important point: the important point is that they can have a real, and harmful, effect on religious liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/48 "2014-03-14T14:11:24Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Sounds like you want freedom of theft. Ah I want reasonable copyright laws that give the author the right to reasonable compensation for their work, not the right to withhold it and not the right to demand excessive compensation. The use of the word “theft” in your context ignores the fact that the First Amendment is not about copyright but about freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/49 "2014-03-14T14:26:53Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Ah I want reasonable copyright laws that give the author the right to reasonable compensation for their work, not the right to withhold it and not the right to demand excessive compensation. . You have no First Amendment right to any Disney property. At all. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_Merton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Frank\_Merton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_Merton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/50 "2014-03-14T14:30:56Z")
Where do you get that idea? The original copyright was I think ten years, and even that was unreasonable. Copyright laws are clear infringement of freedom of speech, which is why we have fair use laws. The problem is that in the States the film and music industries milk the public out of far more than their product would earn in an open market. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/51 "2014-03-14T15:27:50Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Copyright laws are clear infringement of freedom of speech, The Constitution gives Congress the right to make copyright laws: The Congress shall have the power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; [Article I, section 8] ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/52 "2014-03-14T15:30:42Z")
Frank Merton has a point. The original intent of copyright was to let an artist benefit from his work, then after a period of time, such work would go into the public domain and everyone could benefit from it. But corporations have, as usual bought out the government and the regulators, and nowadays any profitable work stays in private hands pretty much forever, between trademark and copyright. It’s gone from a law designed to benefit artists and the public to one that benefits artists and large corporations, and public not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/53 "2014-03-14T16:50:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It’s gone from a law designed to benefit artists and the public to one that benefits artists and large corporations, and public not at all. Considering what most royalty rates are, the law isn’t doing all that much for artists either. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/54 "2014-03-14T16:53:29Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Where do you get that idea? The original copyright was I think ten years, and even that was unreasonable. Copyright laws are clear infringement of freedom of speech, which is why we have fair use laws. The problem is that in the States the film and music industries milk the public out of far more than their product would earn in an open market. How does that derive from rights secured by the First Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/55 "2014-03-14T16:56:26Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > We’d probably be a lot more impressed with your determination of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind if you demonstrated a greater understanding of the history of constitutional law. This is your chance to educate me about constitutional law. Throughout American history, various religious groups have gotten exemptions from various laws, ranging from Social Security to mandatory military service. I could provide cites for this fact, but since no one’s disputed it I assume that’s not necessary. Some, including **Buck Godot** and **Little Nemo** , say that this is a violation of the Establishment Clause. If they’re correct, then there should be plentiful evidence for it. There could be legal documents, court cases, constitutional law textbooks and so forth, all saying that religious exemptions are violations of the Establishment Clause. But I’ve never seen any such legal document or court case. ---
**Author:** ![Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steely_Dan_Fan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/56 "2014-03-14T17:04:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If the Little Sisters of the Poor and other groups are fearing that they’ll be heavily fined for expressing their religious views, that would clearly be a violation of that principle. > How can a “non-state actor” have as much of a deleterious effects as the state on religious liberty? By, for example, killing or threatening to kill people who dare to worship differently or not at all. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/57 "2014-03-14T18:04:57Z")
Killing people who worship a certain way would violate laws against murder. It would not, however, violate the First Amendment, unless it’s the government doing the killing. Thus it’s unclear why you’re mentioning such things in this thread, as this thread is a discussion of the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/58 "2014-03-14T18:10:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > This is your chance to educate me about constitutional law. Throughout American history, various religious groups have gotten exemptions from various laws, ranging from Social Security to mandatory military service. I could provide cites for this fact, but since no one’s disputed it I assume that’s not necessary. > > Some, including **Buck Godot** and **Little Nemo** , say that this is a violation of the Establishment Clause. We can read what they said. They didn’t say that. Serious question for you: do you care that they didn’t say that? This thread is my only exposure to what’s apparently an ongoing debate, so I might be saying something loaded with irony. Do you want the difference between what **Buck Godot** said and what you’re saying explained to you? ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/59 "2014-03-14T18:19:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The Constitution gives Congress the right to make copyright laws: > The Congress shall have the power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; [Article I, section 8] One could argue that since the First Amendment is, well, an amendment, the right to free speech guaranteed in it supercedes that power since it was granted in the unamended text. Since the purpose of an Amendment is to alter government power in some way, it’s a reasonable argument. One I don’t agree with and don’t think there’s much precedent for, but I think you could make a case for it. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/60 "2014-03-14T18:42:50Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > Where do you get that idea? The original copyright was I think ten years, and even that was unreasonable. Copyright laws are clear infringement of freedom of speech, which is why we have fair use laws. The problem is that in the States the film and music industries milk the public out of far more than their product would earn in an open market. > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Frank Merton has a point. The original intent of copyright was to let an artist benefit from his work, then after a period of time, such work would go into the public domain and everyone could benefit from it. But corporations have, as usual bought out the government and the regulators, and nowadays any profitable work stays in private hands pretty much forever, between trademark and copyright. It’s gone from a law designed to benefit artists and the public to one that benefits artists and large corporations, and public not at all. Got a cite for that? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=4)