# 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:** 5
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/81 "2014-03-15T21:17:12Z")
> [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > 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principle rather than how it was thought to apply in a late eighteenth-century intellectual context that has since been superseded in many of its specifics. No, the rational thing to do would be to write up some other document to say exactly what you mean so that people cannot disagree with your interpretation. Then you would refer to that document, and not the first amendment. It is irrational to try to force words to mean something they don’t. You can say the first amendment illustrates some principle, but you cannot say that it actually is that principle. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/82 "2014-03-15T22:40:53Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > To me, it looks like the defense of the Obama Administration rests on the same sort of childish misunderstanding as those who say that message board policies violate the First Amendment. So which side is right? You are correct about the First Amendment. However, you are wrong that the defense of the Obama administration rests ONLY on this childish misunderstanding. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/83 "2014-03-15T22:42:14Z")
> [@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. Seriously, dude, no. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/84 "2014-03-15T22:46:58Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > 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? Can I jump in? Okay, I will! No. The intent of copyright was to encourage production of artistic works, and that happens even if the work never goes into public domain, ever. Even if the public must pay a copyright holder for the work, it still is available to the public. The time it is held as intellectual property doesn’t matter, even if it is forever. > [@](#): > > But corporations have, as usual bought out the government and the regulators, > > Do you disagree with this? What the hell does that mean? > [@](#): > > and nowadays any profitable work stays in private hands pretty much forever, between trademark and copyright. > > Do you disagree with this? No. But was the law changed, or is it being ignored or what? State your case. “Corporations bought out government” is not a case. ---
**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 16, 2014, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/85 "2014-03-16T22:35:31Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Can I jump in? Okay, I will! > > No. The intent of copyright was to encourage production of artistic works, and that happens even if the work never goes into public domain, ever. Even if the public must pay a copyright holder for the work, it still is available to the public. The time it is held as intellectual property doesn’t matter, even if it is forever. It is true that an infinite term copyright could promote the production of artistic works (until the maze of existing copyrights makes it effectively impossible to make something without getting sued for being a derivative work, I suppose). However, that was clearly not the intent of the establishment of copyright in the US, since the Constitution specifies that the right be “for a limited time.” ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/86 "2014-03-17T16:28:12Z")
**ITR** , since this has continued through two threads and meandered quite a bit, could you restate or summarize your position on the Sisters claim? I claimed above that their religious freedom is being respected because they have the option to fill out a form claiming that religious freedom and thus not provide contraception. Do you dispute this, either in the facts (that they can fill out a form instead of providing contraception coverage), or in my interpretation (that this respects their religious freedom)? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/87 "2014-03-17T19:01:06Z")
The fine distinction in the Sister’s claim relates to a facet of the PPACA that arguably does not truly exempt the organization. If the Sister’s sign the form they view that as instructing the insurance company to provide contraceptive coverage. Indeed that is what the PPACA exemption would have happen. A religious organization claiming an exemption to the contraceptive mandate still pays the same premium. The farcical myth espoused by the PPACA is that employees of such organizations would still receive contraceptive benefits for free, paid for by the insurer and not the employer’s premium. There is nothing free about it. TANSTAAFL The Sisters claim that they cannot take any action, such as signing the paper certifying their exemption claim, if the result of that action would be in violation of their conscience as regards contraception. They claim that signing the paper is tantamount to telling the insurance company to provide contraceptive coverage in violation of their religious tenets. The court will decide. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/88 "2014-03-17T20:06:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. I’m not sure if I understand your concern, but to try and understand your problem easier, I offer this: "If a religious organization wants an exemption from the new law’s “contraceptive mandate,” because the services required are against its faith, that organization must fill out the form and file it with the insurance company or other entity that runs its employee health insurance plan. Then, the plan operator arranges for those services, free of charge, to the organization’s female workers. (The government provides an inducement in the form of a subsidy.) The government’s idea, of course, was to put a clear gap between the religious group and ultimate access to birth control and related health benefits. And the government drafted that form precisely to insulate the religious employer from the services, to “accommodate” its faith principles." [From here](http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/analysis-the-little-sisters-case-and-ebsa-form-700/). I know next to nothing about the other thread and not much more about this topic, but from that quote, it seems that the female employees would be allowed to receive contraceptive care from a third party at no additional cost. ---
**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 17, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/89 "2014-03-17T20:15:42Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > **ITR** , since this has continued through two threads and meandered quite a bit, could you restate or summarize your position on the Sisters claim? > > I claimed above that their religious freedom is being respected because they have the option to fill out a form claiming that religious freedom and thus not provide contraception. Do you dispute this, either in the facts (that they can fill out a form instead of providing contraception coverage), or in my interpretation (that this respects their religious freedom)? It’s complicated. The Obama Administration has said, in court, that “[The Little Sisters of the Poor] need only self-certify that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, and then provide a copy of their self-certification to the third-party administrator of their self-insured group health plan.” The truth of what the Obama Administration says is somewhat doubtful. The form that the Little Sisters are being forced to sign [is here](http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/EBSA-Form-700.pdf). As you can see, though it’s only two pages long, it is packed with references to the sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagrahps, etc… of other laws, and filled with descriptions of the “obligations” of the third-party administrator who will actually be running the Little Sisters’ health plans. So what are those obligations? Well, you’d probably need at least one Ph.D. from an Ivy League law school to figure it out. Right now, the Obama Administration is saying that the third-party administrator is not required to provide free birth control to those employees who are getting insurance. Earlier the same Administration said the exact opposite: that the third-party administrator would be required to do so. The plaintifs in the case believe that their third-party administrator would be required to provide free birth control if they signed the form, and object, as **Iggy** has explained. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/90 "2014-03-17T20:19:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The plaintifs in the case believe that their third-party administrator would be required to provide free birth control if they signed the form, and object, as **Iggy** has explained. So the religious freedom issue isn’t just “it’s our right to not provide contraception coverage to our employees”, it’s “it’s our right to deny anyone from providing contraceptive coverage to our employees”? ---
**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 17, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/91 "2014-03-17T20:35:33Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Can I jump in? Okay, I will! > > No. The intent of copyright was to encourage production of artistic works, and that happens even if the work never goes into public domain, ever. Even if the public must pay a copyright holder for the work, it still is available to the public. The time it is held as intellectual property doesn’t matter, even if it is forever. Sure, copyright was intended to allow creators of written works to retain control of, and profit from the sale of, their works for a time, but NOT FOREVER. It was written right into the statute it was for a limited time, as pointed out. Why do you think it was written that way, Lance? By mistake? > [@](#): > > What the hell does that mean? It means that [people like Disney](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Support) made campaign contributions, etc., and got the US Congress to extend copyright to the entirely unreasonable term of the life of the author plus 75 years or 120 years for corporate work back in 1998. > [@](#): > > No. But was the law changed, or is it being ignored or what? State your case. “Corporations bought out government” is not a case. I hear you, Mr. Money is Speech. But I don’t believe you. [From here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#Opposition). > [@](#): > > More directly, they see two successive terms of approximately 20 years each (the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Bono Act) as the beginning of a “slippery slope” toward a perpetual copyright term that nullifies the intended effect and violates the spirit of the “for limited times” language of the United States Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 8.[19] The increasingly long periods of copyright could easily become a perpetual thing. Who knows what Disney will be asking for 20 years from now? ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/92 "2014-03-17T21:27:27Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > So the religious freedom issue isn’t just “it’s our right to not provide contraception coverage to our employees”, it’s “it’s our right to deny anyone from providing contraceptive coverage to our employees”? No. Certainly not. No argument has been made by the Little Sisters that their employees cannot seek contraception from third parties. If an employee wishes to go get the contraception on their own then they may do so. The Little Sisters only object to forcing their religious order to take part in that process. ---
**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 17, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/93 "2014-03-17T21:31:15Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > No. Certainly not. > > No argument has been made by the Little Sisters that their employees cannot seek contraception from third parties. If an employee wishes to go get the contraception on their own then they may do so. The Little Sisters only object to forcing their religious order to take part in that process. Even if taking part in that process is limited to acknowledging they don’t wish to take part in that process? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/94 "2014-03-17T21:42:07Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > The Little Sisters only object to forcing their religious order to take part in that process. I’m confused by what “take part” means, then. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seemed to me that the Little Sisters not only objected to providing coverage, but also objected to signing the form claiming the exception and having a third party provide coverage. ---
**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 17, 2014, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/95 "2014-03-17T22:00:00Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > So the religious freedom issue isn’t just “it’s our right to not provide contraception coverage to our employees”, it’s “it’s our right to deny anyone from providing contraceptive coverage to our employees”? If any employee wants to purchase health insurance coverage that includes coverage of contraception from someone other than the Little Sisters of the Poor, that employee is free to do so. The Little Sisters object to being forced to purchase health insurance that includes coverage of contraception. The idea that the third party administrator is providing the coverage, rather than the Little Sisters themselves, is an absurd fiction that the Obama Administration has concocted. In this particular case, the “third-party administrator” is simply a Catholic organization set up to provide health insurance to Catholic non-profit employers. So forcing the third-party administrator to provide contraceptive coverage would still be forcing a Catholic organization to provide contraception coverage. That said, the Obama Administration [appears to be arguing](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367564/little-sisters-poor-case-administrations-position-goes-absurd-surreal-matt-bowman), as I’ve noted, that even if the form is signed no one will provide contraception coverage to employees of the Little Sisters. Which begs the question: why does Obama insist on fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to make them sign a form that’s legally meaningless? ---
**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 17, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/96 "2014-03-17T22:53:24Z")
Thanks for the explanation. I do agree that the idea of the 3rd party plan administrator having to pay for contraception and the nuns having to pay the same premium as a non-exempt employer would is an absurd legal fiction that should not stand. I was under the impression that it had been determined that the 3rd party _did not_ have to provide contraceptive coverage to employees of the exempt party based on the injuction text: > [@](#): > > Employer-applicants’ third-party administrator therefore will be under no legal obligation to provide the coverage after applicants certify that they object to providing it. I do realize that this is at odds with what the Obama Administration had said earlier, but I interpreted the difference as the administration realizing that the above legal fiction wouldn’t really fly and changing the policy. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/97 "2014-03-17T23:46:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If any employee wants to purchase health insurance coverage that includes coverage of contraception from someone other than the Little Sisters of the Poor, that employee is free to do so. The Little Sisters object to being forced to purchase health insurance that includes coverage of contraception. The idea that the third party administrator is providing the coverage, rather than the Little Sisters themselves, is an absurd fiction that the Obama Administration has concocted. The problem is the entire thing is a fiction. That’s how insurance works, groups pay into a fund, and that fund is used to pay for a variety of things. Just like taxes. Just like a person’s salary. Larger Catholic institutions that use Blue Cross/ Blue Shield or United Healthcare, or any major insurance company are paying into program where the money may be used for contraception, or abortions, or a host of other immoral things. I’m not convinced that the administration’s “fiction” has any less credence than the Little Sister’s fictions. > [@ITR Champion](#): > > In this particular case, the “third-party administrator” is simply a Catholic organization set up to provide health insurance to Catholic non-profit employers. So forcing the third-party administrator to provide contraceptive coverage would still be forcing a Catholic organization to provide contraception coverage. Has this “third party administrator” joined in the suit? Would it be any different if that third party was Blue Cross Blue Shield? And isn’t that 3rd party administrator already exempted from the mandate? > [@ITR](#): > > That said, the Obama Administration [appears to be arguing](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367564/little-sisters-poor-case-administrations-position-goes-absurd-surreal-matt-bowman), as I’ve noted, that even if the form is signed no one will provide contraception coverage to employees of the Little Sisters. Which begs the question: why does Obama insist on fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to make them sign a form that’s legally meaningless? Again, I don’t find it any more bizarre that the administration would defend the system than that the Sisters won’t sign a form. The entire thing smacks more of political grandstanding and taking a side in the culture war than a legitimate legal dispute. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/98 "2014-03-18T05:23:51Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Polygamy is still illegal, isn’t it? Bigamy is illegal, polygamy is not. You don’t have to be legally married to practice it. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/99 "2014-03-18T05:25:39Z")
> [@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. 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. So it’s only price we are arguing about? ---
**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 18, 2014, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631/100 "2014-03-18T06:57:42Z")
> [@sisu](#): > > So it’s only price we are arguing about? Price and availability and the freedom of others to produce fan fiction. I think a fair return is something reasonable for governments to legislate, but I see it nevertheless as an infringement of freedom of speech and not something essential. Books will be written and songs produced and even movies produced with regardless; what you see in many countries is the large film and music companies having too much political power to the detriment of the public. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/correct-my-understanding-of-the-first-amendment/683631.md?page=6)