# Fuck the First Amendment, then **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 14, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135 "2012-06-14T14:19:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/61 "2012-06-15T22:27:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Not when, if it is inconvenient, you just interpret it away. So, what part of the Second Amendment are you interpreting away? Also, what part of the Constitution gives us the ability to have an Air Force? Black and white, chapter and verse, if you please. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/62 "2012-06-15T23:03:11Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Also, what part of the Constitution gives us the ability to have an Air Force? Black and white, chapter and verse, if you please. Article I, Section 8. > [@](#): > > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; \ To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; Is this where you argue that the [Air Force is not an army](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force)? > [@](#): > > Initially part of the United States Army, the USAF was formed as a separate branch of the military on 18 September 1947 under the National Security Act of 1947. Is the argument that it became a constitutional breach the moment the same entity changed its organizational structure? I agree that’s an interesting argument, and that I can’t find a completely satisfying textualist argument for the Air Force. I believe it required an amendment granting additional powers to Congress. [Not everyone agrees:](http://www.volokh.com/posts/1170032632.shtml) > [@](#): > > Citing this text, critics of textualism and originalism claim that the Air Force must be considered unconstitutional under these theories of interpretation. I think there are at least two compelling answers to this claim: > > 1. At most, the argument suggests that it is unconstitutional to have an independent air force. But air forces that are part of the Army and Navy are surely permissible. That is in fact the arrangement we had during WWII, and could go back to again. The mere fact that planes are a new technology that flies through the air surely does not forbid their use by the military, even under a very narrow view of textualism. Planes that fly through the air are no more constitutionally problematic than bullets that fly through the air, or balloons (whose military use was contemplated even at the time of the Founding). > > 2. Even an independent air force could potentially be justified by the Necessary and Proper Clause. If, under modern conditions, it really is militarily important to have an independent air service (a point I don’t express any opinion on), then the creation of an independent air force is “necessary” to the implementation of Congress’ other Article I powers even in the narrow sense of the word, and is also “proper” in the sense that it doesn’t seem to infringe on federalism or on other aspects of the constitutional structure. Hell, I think I could be convinced. It’s an interesting debate (to me). But my bias tends toward the notion that if there’s not a firm textualist basis for the power, Congress doesn’t have it, no matter how much “common sense” suggests it should be so. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/63 "2012-06-16T01:26:26Z")
That commentary makes a pretty big assumption. Why are planes that fly through the air not more constitutionally problematic than bullets? No framing-era definition of “army” or “navy” included aircraft, but every army had bullets. It then makes a totally circular argument by asserting that aircraft could be necessary and proper to carry out other Article I powers; the only relevant Article I power _is_ that to provide for an army and navy. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/64 "2012-06-16T04:49:03Z")
**Stratocaster** : My point is, it’s still interpretation. They’re still interpreting away something in the original text by imputing the idea of support for an Air Force onto it. The difference between our positions is a matter of degree, not of kind as they insist. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/65 "2012-06-16T09:54:15Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > **Stratocaster** : My point is, it’s still interpretation. They’re still interpreting away something in the original text by imputing the idea of support for an Air Force onto it. The difference between our positions is a matter of degree, not of kind as they insist. But my point is, that shouldn’t have been done it in that instance either. If we wanted Congress to be able to create and pay for an Air Force (and I do), we should have amended the Constitution. If the framers wanted the power to be broader they could have assigned the power to “raise and support military forces necessary to provide for the common defense.” But they didn’t, they specifically called out an army and then a navy. That level of precision is necessarily limiting, ISTM. So my point is that there’s no strenuous interpretation required. There is no constitutional basis for forming an air force, ISTM, so it should not have been permitted. That fact that it was, however much I like the idea (and I do!), should not be license for future legislatures (or courts) to endorse such an approach. IOW, this is not a textualist gotcha, not for me at least. And to close up the loop, IMO First Amendment protections ought to be similarly handled. We don’t get to install law that we _wish_ the text permitted. All written words require some level of interpretation, yes. But I oppose the type of interpretation that infers from “free speech shall not be abridged” that “we can abridge free speech.” Or that in eminent domain issues “for public use” can be interpreted to mean “not for public use.” That is a difference in kind, for me. That is no longer interpretation, that is ignoring the simple words. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/66 "2012-06-16T10:02:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That commentary makes a pretty big assumption. Why are planes that fly through the air not more constitutionally problematic than bullets? No framing-era definition of “army” or “navy” included aircraft, but every army had bullets. > > It then makes a totally circular argument by asserting that aircraft could be necessary and proper to carry out other Article I powers; the only relevant Article I power _is_ that to provide for an army and navy. I think I agree. In particular, it stretches the “necessary and proper” clause to an illogical degree, in much the way the commerce clause is often misused. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/67 "2012-06-17T02:05:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Except there is no reason to assume there is only one political opponent. I am, without qualification, against putting anything in the constitution that explicitly reinforces a two party system. I guess that makes me unscrupulous. :rolleyes: Straightforward solution: ad taxes get allocated proportionally to the share of the vote won during the past n elections. n=1,2,3,4 or whatever. This doesn’t necessarily prop the 2 party system. In fact, it would do the opposite by increasing the incentive to vote for spoiler candidates. You could also allocate funds according to who is being attacked. That would involve some judgment calls on the part of the regulators, which raises some reasonable concerns. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > One of the problems that Citizens United demonstrates is that SCOTUS doesn’t care to distinguish between political advertising and political commentary which is ostensibly not advocating for any particular candidate. …and the regulator would presumably have to make some calls here as well… ETA: > [@Ibn](#): > > So then, to be clear, you’re saying that whenever the ACLU puts out an ad criticizing a political candidate, they should be required to give the candidate money to fight back. > > Similarly, presumably whenever John Stewart ridicules a politician running for office, Comedy Central should give him or her money to run a counter-attack. > > If you disagree, please explain your reasoning. Yes for the ACLU running an ad. No for John Stewart offering political commentary which he isn’t paying for. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/68 "2012-06-17T02:22:54Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > ETA: Yes for the ACLU running an ad. No for John Stewart offering political commentary which he isn’t paying for. Comedy Central certainly is paying for it and they are a corporation. Why wouldn’t you sanction them for spending money to try an influence an election if you believe that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to spend money to do so? Your position seems extremely hypocritical. Please explain why you think it’s ok for some corporations to spend money to influence elections but not others. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/69 "2012-06-17T04:24:55Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Comedy Central certainly is paying for it and they are a corporation. > > Why wouldn’t you sanction them for spending money to try an influence an election if you believe that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to spend money to do so? > > Your position seems extremely hypocritical. > > Please explain why you think it’s ok for some corporations to spend money to influence elections but not others. > > Thanks. It isn’t hard. Comedy Central is selling a product -Jon Stewart- to advertisers. That’s completely different from taking out an advertisement. Substantively, one is subject to market forces, while the other is essentially a form of consumption (if the buyer is an individual) or investment (if the buyer is a corporation). Since we’re here to fight ignorance, I hope you don’t mind if I offer an argument you might have sympathy with: Consider this hypothetical. Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post and decides to use his newspaper to campaign for the election of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to the U.S. Senate. He has the First Amendment right to do so, which no one can dispute, and which federal election laws recognize. Suppose Mayor Giuliani’s opponent Hillary Clinton wants to respond to the New York Post’selectioneering. If she owned a newspaper, she could do so. If a friend and supporter owned a newspaper, he or she could do so. Suppose, however, that she has a very wealthy individual supporter who doesn’t own a newspaper, but who is willing to give her the money to run a full-page ad on behalf of her candidacy. If he does so, he violates the law, because current campaign finance laws place strict limits on the size of contributions, and the cost of even a single full-page ad exceeds those limits. The result? One candidate gets an entire newspaper’s support every day, while the other is denied even one page once during the campaign. How can it be that if you buy a newspaper, you get to provide unlimited support for the candidate of your choice but if you buy a billboard to do the same thing, you commit a crime? [Testimony of Executive Director Ira Glasser on Campaign Finance Reform Legislation Before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration | American Civil Liberties Union](http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/testimony-executive-director-ira-glasser-campaign-finance-reform-legislation-senate-comm) My answer is twofold: a) I’m suspicious of hypotheticals: if this were a real problem, we would see it more. As it is, New York has a variety of newspapers with differing points of view, and one newspaper towns tend to have _less_ ideological offerings. b) That said, Britain has some of the problems expressed by the ACLU. My take though is that their political process is corrupted far less than the US. Their mainstream media considers a broader range of ideologies for example. Still, a serious compare and contrast of US vs UK would be illuminating. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/70 "2012-06-17T05:04:22Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > It isn’t hard. Comedy Central is selling a product -Jon Stewart- to advertisers. That’s completely different from taking out an advertisement. Substantively, one is subject to market forces, while the other is essentially a form of consumption (if the buyer is an individual) or investment (if the buyer is a corporation). So then you supported the Supreme Court saying that the FEC couldn’t sanction the non-profit corporation, Citizens United since they weren’t “taking out an advertisement” but were “selling a product” specifically the documentary, Hillary: The Movie. Similarly, you’re disgusted that McCain-Feingold gave the FEC broad discretion to sanction not just ads but whatever they deemed to be “electioneering communications”, specifically attempts to influence an election. Certainly, John Stewart, like Michael Moore, and the non-profit corporation Citizens United were trying to influence elections and they were using corporate money to do so. Anyway, I’m glad to see that you actually supported the SCOTUS decision and thought it was a great “fuck you” to the book burners trying to shut down political expression. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/71 "2012-06-17T07:09:04Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then you supported the Supreme Court saying that the FEC couldn’t sanction the non-profit corporation, Citizens United since they weren’t “taking out an advertisement” but were “selling a product” specifically the documentary, Hillary: The Movie. > > Similarly, you’re disgusted that McCain-Feingold gave the FEC broad discretion to sanction not just ads but whatever they deemed to be “electioneering communications”, specifically attempts to influence an election. That follows not. You asked for a distinction. I gave you one. Now you’re moving on to other arguments. Citizens United was sued not for making a documentary -nobody has problems with that- but for using it as a transparent front for running political ads against Hillary Clinton. Again it’s not hard: paying for an advertisement is fundamentally different than selling a product. > [@](#): > > Certainly, John Stewart, like Michael Moore, and the non-profit corporation Citizens United were trying to influence elections and they were using corporate money to do so. Again, the distinction is between an advertisement and a journal, magazine, movie or whatever. Look I’m sure they’re arguments to be made here. But let’s keep in mind this bright-line distinction. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/72 "2012-06-17T14:42:34Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > That follows not. You asked for a distinction. I gave you one. Now you’re moving on to other arguments. > > Citizens United was sued not for making a documentary -nobody has problems with that- but for using it as a transparent front for running political ads against Hillary Clinton. Again it’s not hard: paying for an advertisement is fundamentally different than selling a product. Again, the distinction is between an advertisement and a journal, magazine, movie or whatever. > > Look I’m sure they’re arguments to be made here. But let’s keep in mind this bright-line distinction. So, it’s perfectly OK in your world for the New Koch Times or Koch News to “offer a product” that also advocates for political causes? Sort of like what the New York Times and FoxNews does now. Ditto for The Soros Times and Soros News. ---
**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:** [June 17, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/73 "2012-06-17T14:49:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because: That’s not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction. The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/74 "2012-06-17T14:57:00Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction. > > The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own. Except that a corporation isn’t a person. It has certain legal aspects of personhood, but not all. The premise if flawed. A≠ B. You might be able to get away with saying A ⊆ B, so go ahead and see where logic takes you from there. ---
**Author:** ![LeeshaJoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LeeshaJoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LeeshaJoy)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/75 "2012-06-17T14:57:54Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction. > > The guy was quoting basic logic at you. If A is B, and B is C, then A is C. A=corporations, B=persons, and C=illegal to own. I’m a girl, FWIW. And yeah, if we’re going to assert that corporations are people, and _deserving of the rights granted to people by the Constitution_, then stock ownership should be unconstitutional. To say otherwise is, IMO, to imply that _there are circumstances where it’s legal for one person to own another, and to trade persons as commodities_. Do we really want to set that precedent? ---
**Author:** ![LeeshaJoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@LeeshaJoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LeeshaJoy)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/76 "2012-06-17T15:07:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Except that a corporation isn’t a person. It has certain legal aspects of personhood, but not all. The premise if flawed. A≠ B. You might be able to get away with saying A ⊆ B, so go ahead and see where logic takes you from there. Point me to where it says that the thirteenth amendment only applies to “natural persons.” The amendment makes no attempt to define slavery, let alone who can be subject to it. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/77 "2012-06-17T16:27:49Z")
> [@LeeshaJoy](#): > > I’m a girl, FWIW. > > And yeah, if we’re going to assert that corporations are people, and _deserving of the rights granted to people by the Constitution_, then stock ownership should be unconstitutional. To say otherwise is, IMO, to imply that _there are circumstances where it’s legal for one person to own another, and to trade persons as commodities_. Do we really want to set that precedent? This is the dumbest argument against corporate “personhood” (or whatever gotcha it’s trying to trot out) I have yet come across. The people who make up corporations have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, just like any other association of people. Let me go on the record as saying I am dead against those people being sold into slavery. You have a flawed concept of what “[corporate personhood](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)” implies. Here’s a hint: the fact that the word “person” is in it doesn’t magically make this legal entity a human being. > [@](#): > > Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are “people” in the literal sense, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/78 "2012-06-17T17:12:43Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > That follows not. You asked for a distinction. I gave you one. Now you’re moving on to other arguments. > > Citizens United was sued not for making a documentary -nobody has problems with that- but for using it as a transparent front for running political ads against Hillary Clinton. Again it’s not hard: paying for an advertisement is fundamentally different than selling a product. Again, the distinction is between an advertisement and a journal, magazine, movie or whatever And by those standards, Michael Moore was using his “product” _Fahrenheit 911_ as “a transparent front for running political ads against” George Bush. I’ll assume then that you feel that the FEC should have sanctioned the corporation that produced that movie. Similarly, the corporation producing _The Daily Show_, pretty blatantly has, by your standards, used their product as a political ad. > [@](#): > > Again, the distinction is between an advertisement and a journal, magazine, movie or whatever This statement shows rather extreme ignorance about McCain-Feingold. According to McCain-Feingold there was no difference between “an advertisement” and “a journal, magazine, movie or whatever” if the “journal, magazine, movie or whatever” was used, according to FEC regulators to try and influence an election. According to McCain-Feingold, in order to be sanctioned the “electioneering communications” didn’t even have to explicitly call on people to vote for or against a candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/80 "2012-06-17T17:23:54Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. Can you point out exactly which words in: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech refer to the legal concept of a person. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135/81 "2012-06-17T17:43:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That’s not an answer. The first amendment is a law, so it is obviously referring to the legal concept of a person. The thirteenth amendment is also a law, so it is also referring to the legal concept of a person. The constitution makes no such distinction. I can’t parse this post at all. You know the first and thirteenth amendments are _parts_ of the Constitution, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-the-first-amendment-then/625135.md?page=5)