# 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:** 4
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/61 "2014-03-14T18:43:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. Poor play, my friend. You asked, and I quote, “How can a “non-state actor” have as much of a deleterious effects as the state on religious liberty?” He answered that question. He didn’t answer the question of how non-state actors could violate the first amendment. So your response to him is a total non sequitur made possible only by your asking one question and then telling him he didn’t answer a different question. ---
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/62 "2014-03-14T19:10:35Z")
> [@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. > [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > We can read what they said. They didn’t say that. Yes they did. Here are the exact quotes: > [@Buck Godot](#): > > There are two parts of the first amendment with regard to religion. The first is that the state must not make laws that prevent the practice of religion, which is what you seem to be most concerned with, but the second is that the state should not establish a religion. Or in other words give special treatment to one religion over another. A statute that says that Catholic Churches are immune from zoning laws is just as bad as one that imposes additional zoning requirements on Catholic Churches. In this case the organization is trying to carve out an exemption to the ACA for itself. > [@Little Nemo](#): > > The government enacts a law, which everyone agrees it has the authority to do. This law apples to everyone. > > The government then says that some people are immune to this law because of their religion. That’s the government giving a benefit to some people because of their religion. And the government singling out one religion for a benefit would be a violation of the establishment clause. > [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > Do you want the difference between what Buck Godot said and what you’re saying explained to you? Please do. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/63 "2014-03-14T19:21:08Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In my interpretation, the First Amendment only restricts the laws that the government can make. It says so quite clearly. It does not restrict what anyone other than the government can do. Hence it’s logically impossible for anyone other than the government to violate the First Amendment. TEXTUALLY, yes, Case law, no! > [@](#): > > Some people don’t seem to get this. For instance, people on this and other message boards have claimed that having rules for what can be posted and moderators to enforce those rules is against the First Amendment. They’re wrong; of course. Yes they are. > [@](#): > > Private institutions can have whatever rules governing speech they want, within their own property or events. Not necessarily always true concerning freedom of speech. ---
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/64 "2014-03-14T19:26:32Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > TEXTUALLY, yes, Case law, no! To be clear, we’re talking about a group such as the Little Sisters of the Poor that’s entirely non-governmental, not about some group such as a quasi-public hospital or university or art museum. Are you claiming that in case law, an entirely non-governmental group has ever been found to be in violation of the First Amendment? If so, I’d love to see the case in question? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/65 "2014-03-14T19:31:26Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Are you claiming that in case law, an entirely non-governmental group has ever been found to be in violation of the First Amendment? If so, I’d love to see the case in question? Some entities are restricted, and violated the 1st, compare Alabama v Marsh for one! ---
**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, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/66 "2014-03-14T19:35:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Some, including **Buck Godot** and **Little Nemo** , say that this is a violation of the Establishment Clause. Yes, I agree with ITR on this one. I do feel it’s an Establishment Clause issue. ---
**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, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/67 "2014-03-14T19:38:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes, I agree with ITR on this one. I do feel it’s an Establishment Clause issue. Some clarification would help: Bob’s Church of Jesus and Chicken opens up a church right next to Church’s Chicken. They offer pieces of fried chicken during communion, right after passing the collection plate. Church’s chicken must pay property tax. Bob’s Church of Chicken doesn’t have to pay property tax. Is it your claim that: 1. This oughtta violate the constitution? 2. The Supreme Court has ruled that this violates the constitution? 3. Something else? ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/68 "2014-03-14T19:39:22Z")
You agree with him that mandatory military service exemptions violate the Establishment Clause? ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/69 "2014-03-14T19:44:02Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Got a cite for that? :dubious: Define “that.” 😕 ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/70 "2014-03-14T20:02:32Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Define “that.” 😕 The claims you were making, duh. ---
**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, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/71 "2014-03-14T20:17:36Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > The claims you were making, duh. “Duh” seems appropriate here. Here are the claims I made: 1. 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. Do you disagree with this? But corporations have, as usual bought out the government and the regulators, Do you disagree with this? and nowadays any profitable work stays in private hands pretty much forever, between trademark and copyright. Do you disagree with this? 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. Do you disagree with this? ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/72 "2014-03-14T20:32:10Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > This is your chance to educate me about constitutional law. I’m hardly an expert in constitutional law. I took one class in college 10 years ago. I’m sure a few hours reading from wikipedia’s [List of Landmark Court Decisions in the US](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States) would allow anyone to walk rings around my knowledge. But I also don’t go around making foolish claims about what the framers had in mind when they wrote certain words, or that the First Amendment only limits the actions of congress. Perhaps you should take this chance to educate yourself? > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t think they’re correct, though I’m now well out of my depth here. I think the reason that they’re not correct is that there are exceptions available to _anyone_ with a sufficient claim against them. Yes, the Amish are exempted from Social Security on religious grounds, but railroad workers are also exempted (on some other grounds). Yes, the Quakers get an exemption from military service, but so does anyone else with sufficient moral grounds. There’s no establishment of religion because it’s not favoring certain religions. Let’s go back to the original complaint. The nuns do not wish to provide contraception because they claim it is against their religious beliefs. The government says ok, we have an exemption for that, all you have to do is fill out this form that states that it’s against your beliefs, and no problem. And the nuns apparently refuse to do even that. In this case, _anyone_ who wants to make the claim that their religion offers an exemption to this law can make that claim. All they have to do is fill out the form so the bureaucracy has it on file. It’s hard to see what the nuns are doing as anything other than obstinacy because they don’t like the idea that _others_ are prompted to provide contraceptive coverage. I now return you to your thread in progress, which has apparently become about copyright, because why have an argument on the internet if it’s not going to be about copyright, I suppose. ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/73 "2014-03-14T21:03:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Some clarification would help: > > Bob’s Church of Jesus and Chicken opens up a church right next to Church’s Chicken. They offer pieces of fried chicken during communion, right after passing the collection plate. > > Church’s chicken must pay property tax. Bob’s Church of Chicken doesn’t have to pay property tax. > > Is it your claim that: > > 1. This oughtta violate the constitution? > 2. The Supreme Court has ruled that this violates the constitution? > 3. Something else? Assuming you’re required to put something in the collection plate in order to get some chicken, I think the government would say that Bob is running a business rather than a non-profit organization. Non-profit organizations (both religious and non-religious) have tax breaks. Businesses do not. ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/74 "2014-03-14T21:24:56Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Assuming you’re required to put something in the collection plate in order to get some chicken Nope–I would’ve put that if that’s what I meant. Addressing the hypothetical as given, can you explain? IOW, there are of course plenty of cases in which churches are treated differently from businesses. Do you contend that 1. This oughtta violate the constitution? 2. The Supreme Court has ruled that this violates the constitution? 3. Something else? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/75 "2014-03-14T23:52:11Z")
Haven’t read the whole thread yet but I’m going to respond directly to the OP I guess since I was quoted. Here’s my understanding of the situation and what you, ITR, got wrong: It is not true that only the government can be in violation of the 1st Amendment. But its not as simple as saying a private institution making up rules that infringe upon something like free speech is impossible. A specific law’s life, for lack of a better term, is made up of several parts: those who make the law, those who enforce it, and those who violate it. Only the government can make laws. Thus, they are mandated to make laws that do not go against the 1st Amendment. Private organizations can make rules, but they are not legally enforceable by the police. Those who enforce the law falls into two camps. One, there’s the law enforcement officers like police or military that uphold a standard, or judges and lawyers that interpret and hear cases. Or two, there are private organizations that sue on behalf of the third group below. Organizations such as the ACLU may not do any particular enforcing, but through lawsuits, they bring about enforcement by punishing those who do wrong with legal cases. Then there’s the third group, actual people or organizations who violate or are somehow impacted by the 1st Amendment. This can be anybody, though strict interpretation of whether they were violated or impacted falls sometimes to the 2nd group above. This can be private organizations who feel they are silenced by the government, employees who feel they are silenced by employers, or individuals who have grievances on how the government enforces the law or how it was written. I said: > [@](#): > > The nuns are absolutely 100% wrong on this. They are trying to push their religious beliefs on their employees. They are infringing upon the freedoms of Americans and need to be punished. The OP also needs to actually understand the Constitution before commenting on it. In this case, the nuns are acting as the 2nd group, enforcing a radical interpretation of the 1st Amendment on others who are not nuns. They are part of the 2nd group but here’s where you got suckered, they want everyone to think they are the 3rd group, the aggrieved. The nuns claim their rights are being violated therefore they bring a lawsuit against the government. What they are actually doing is trying to enforce upon other people their own interpretation of the law. It is unfortunate (yes, I said **UN** fortunate) that in this country, we hold up religious expression seemingly to be the highest of the 1st Amendment rights. Realistically, we know that often rights conflicts. My right to swing my fist vs. your right to place your nose in its path. Your problem, then, ITR, is that you childishly think that religious rights should always triumph, or rather, Christian religious rights. And, when a non-Christian group wins a case following a violation, you interpret that win as a zero sum game, that the Christian must have lost rights for the other group to have gained it. Therefore, you see each loss as a violation of Christian rights, when instead you should be more broadly interpreting it as a win for religious or free expression rights (hint: not all religious-based grievances are religious in nature, some can be free expression conflicting with religious preferences). You won’t, of course, because we all know your agenda, but you should see it my way So that goes back to the nuns. They felt that a law made by the Obama Administration violated their rights, claiming to be the aggrieved. However, since it was specifically written to not take into account anything that isn’t already done, with a paltry requirement of signing a form saying they don’t want to provide birth control, the nuns are not really basing their objection on religion. To be perfectly honest, the whole thing is about a form. But that form would allow their employees the freedom to move away from the nuns’ health care to some other 3rd party which would provide contraceptives. But let’s not beat around the bush here, the nuns want to control their employees no matter if they are working for them or not. That’s the real issue. Therefore, I stand by my statement that they are 100% absolutely wrong. By trying to create laws for people not under their purview, they are acting as both group 1 and group 2. They are no longer the aggrieved, they are trying to make laws and enforce them. Plus, this lawsuit pits two types of freedoms against each other, the nuns’ right to interpret their own religious institution versus the employee’s right to go to a non-religious health care organization to get contraceptives. Those nuns are fucking assholes and you are woefully wrong to think that this is a clear cut 1st Amendment case ---
**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 15, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/76 "2014-03-15T01:53:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Nope–I would’ve put that if that’s what I meant. Addressing the hypothetical as given, can you explain? In my defense, you weren’t clear on that point. If Bob’s Church is handing out chicken to people without requiring them to pay then it’s a charity organization and it’s entitled to the same treatment that other charity organizations receive. And it can ask people to make donations to continue its operations as other charity donations do. ---
**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 15, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/77 "2014-03-15T20:41:50Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > My right to swing my fist vs. your right to place your nose in its path. Your problem, then, ITR, is that you childishly think that religious rights should always triumph, or rather, Christian religious rights. And, when a non-Christian group wins a case following a violation, you interpret that win as a zero sum game, that the Christian must have lost rights for the other group to have gained it. Really? Did I ever say that? If so, would you please link to the post in which I did? > [@](#): > > To be perfectly honest, the whole thing is about a form. But that form would allow their employees the freedom to move away from the nuns’ health care to some other 3rd party which would provide contraceptives. Could you please provide a cite to back up your claim that the form in question “would allow their employees the freedom to move away from the nuns’ health care to some other 3rd party which would provide contraceptives”? You made the exact same claim in the original thread about the Little Sisters case, and when I challenged you to provide a cite, you failed to do so. I presume you wouldn’t make the same claim only to repeat the same humiliation once again, so you surely must have cite this time. > [@](#): > > But let’s not beat around the bush here, the nuns want to control their employees no matter if they are working for them or not. That’s the real issue. And I challenge you to provide a cite for this claim as well. > [@](#): > > By trying to create laws for people not under their purview, they are acting as both group 1 and group 2. They are no longer the aggrieved, they are trying to make laws and enforce them. Really? What’s the name of the law that the Little Sisters are trying to create? > [@](#): > > Plus, this lawsuit pits two types of freedoms against each other, the nuns’ right to interpret their own religious institution versus the employee’s right to go to a non-religious health care organization to get contraceptives. Supposing that the Little Sisters win, what stops any of their employees from going to a non-religious health care organization to get contraceptives? Do you have any reason to believe that any employee of the Little Sisters of the Poor is the least bit unhappy with the health insurance coverage that they currently have? (I asked you this in the other thread and you didn’t answer.) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/78 "2014-03-15T20:51:14Z")
> [@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. You can say that about “freedom of speech,” but not the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a part of the constitution, not a concept. It is a legal document and means what it says. ---
**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 15, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/79 "2014-03-15T20:59:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. That’s…not what you asked me, though. You asked, “How can non-state actors violate religious liberty?” not “How can non-state actors violate the First Amendment?” ---
**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 15, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/80 "2014-03-15T21:01:51Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You can say that about “freedom of speech,” but not the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a part of the constitution, not a concept. It is a legal document and means what it says. It is an attempt to enshrine a conceptual principle, in a highly specific context; the rational and correct thing to do, then, is to focus on that principle rather than how it was thought to apply in a late eighteenth-century intellectual context that has since been superseded in many of its specifics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=5)