# What part of the Constitution permits prostylitzing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2002, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546 "2002-11-19T16:38:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/21 "2002-11-20T00:08:40Z")
This seems to be more of a General Questions topic than a Great Debate. I refer you to the Supreme Court caselaw on the First Amendment. You’ll find just about everything you need to know there. Here’s a good source on what the First Amendment does and does not do: > **[First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw](https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html)** > > First Amendment - Religion and ExpressionAmendment Text | Annotations Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/22 "2002-11-20T00:19:57Z")
> [@](#): > > The Constitution limits the scope and power of government operations, it isn’t a list of things that we’re “permitted”. The Framers of the Constitution were worried that some would take things that way, which is why they added the Ninth Amendment: **The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.** ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/23 "2002-11-20T03:32:17Z")
Just because it’s speech doesn’t mean it’s per se protected. Fraudulent advertising is not protected speech. In my humble opinion, proselytizing should not be protected speech either, at least not until one of the religions is proven to be the right one. Then that one, I suppose, can proselytize. I started a thread on this very topic a while back and got rammed for not being sensitive to the freedom of speech and freedom of religion of the proselytizers. Neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion are absolute. Try getting permission to smoke pot for your religoius beliefs and see what happens to you. Proselytizing is no different than going door to door trying to sign up people for your little pyramid scheme. You have the right to be and believe what ever religion you want. You should not have the right to spread it. Religion is evil; religions that believe in recruiting other members are the sole bane of humanity. They are against public policy and should not be permitted any more than fraudulent advertising or shooting abortion doctors for Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/24 "2002-11-20T03:40:34Z")
So, **Kalt** , by saying religion is false, aren’t you proselytizing for atheism? Do you _really_ want the government to be determining the truth or falsity of atheism, and hence the “fraudulence” of atheistic arguments made in public debate? ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/25 "2002-11-20T04:05:06Z")
Nope. I’m not saying the government should dictate what religious/nonreligious beliefs are true or false, just control proselytizing. They should control spam too. Establish a national opt-in list. If you want people to convert you, put your name on the opt-in list. Otherwise you’re off-limits. Religious advertising is no more protected than advertising for a new home mortgage. I wasn’t saying religion is fraudulent, I was just using the example of fraudulent speech to show that not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. Proselytory religions are pyramid schemes, though. Join, get saved, and get other people to join, ad nauseum. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/26 "2002-11-20T04:05:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*The Framers of the Constitution were worried that some would take things that way, which is why they added the Ninth Amendment: > > **The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.** \*\* Um…I don’t see the contradiction between the Ninth and what **SenorBeef** said. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/27 "2002-11-20T04:35:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*The Framers of the Constitution were worried that some would take things that way, which is why they added the Ninth Amendment: > > **The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.** \*\* Huh? The amendment says just because it specifically enumerates protection for some rights doesn’t mean that those are the only rights protected. How does that contradict what I said? Which way do you think I’m taking the Constitution that the founders were afraid of? Are you saying that I’m wrong, and that the Constitution is specifically meant to list what we could and could not do? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/28 "2002-11-20T04:43:15Z")
Can’t you see that I was agreeing with what you said? > [@](#): > > Are you saying that I’m wrong, and that the Constitution is specifically meant to list what we could and could not do? No. I’m **not** saying it was meant to list everything that we can do. Why else would I drum out the 9th amendment? The amendment was added for the purpose of preventing people from **misinterpreting** the rights granted to be the **only** rights we have. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/29 "2002-11-20T04:44:46Z")
Ah. I see. Your post was worded so that it sounded like “the people who would see it that way” were folks like **SenorBeef**. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/30 "2002-11-20T04:46:23Z")
Does the Constitution grant us the right to smile, or breathe air, or practice the art of self love in the shower? Well, it doesn’t specifically say that. But I’m pretty sure that these are things which would fall under 9th amendment protection. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/31 "2002-11-20T04:48:22Z")
Um…right. I think we are all in agreement here on that point. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/32 "2002-11-20T05:00:21Z")
My mistake - I saw the bottom post first, by Neurotik, saying that what you said didn’t contradict me. So I looked up looking for the post that contradicted me - and I automatically read what you said to mean you thought the way I was looking at it was what the framers were afraid of. Simple miscommunication. Now I must commit ritualistic suicide. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/33 "2002-11-20T05:07:39Z")
Bone to pick with the thread title, then onto some helpful cites… The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is not about _permitting_ things, it’s about _forbidding_ things. The Bill of Rights lists various things that the Congress of the federal government is forbidden from doing. The 14th Amendment extends many of those provisions to forbid the state governments from taking certain actions. So the Bill of Rights does not have to say “proselytizing is permitted”, rather it says that Congress either is or is not forbidden to pass a law restricting it. I’m no expert on constitutional law, but I know the fundamentals of property law. The most basic tenet of property law is the “right to exclude”, removing people from your property or preventing them from entering it. If it’s proselytizing on public property that you abhor, then you’re just going to have to live with it. Such speech can be limited somewhat, though. Relevant caselaw: _Schenk v. U.S._, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)…the historic case that sided with the government and found free speech not to be an absolute right, and the Sedition Act of 1918 to be constitutional. Opinion written by the famous Justice Oliver Holmes. _Terminiello v. Chicago_, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)…narrowed previous case, gives us this basic guideline from Justice Douglas’ opinion: > [@](#): > > freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/34 "2002-11-20T05:27:49Z")
Freedom of speech isn’t even \*that \*broad. There are many types of speech which are not “free” (sorry to ruin your image of America). Slander, libel, copyright infringement (I’m not free to copy your book, even though doing so is “speech”), fraud, “fighting words,” revealing national secrets, revealing trade secrets, revealing any information under protective order, soliciting a crime, perjury, suborning perjury, and of course my favorite - yelling fire in a crowded theater. The list goes on and on. If you think citing the first amendment will get you off the hook for any of the aforementioned crimes/torts, think again. Free speech is a great thing, but it’s so far from absolute that it’s the exception, not the rule. Proselytizing serves absolutely no public good (quite the opposite, in fact). It should be highly regulated. Even an opt-out list is not good enough; an opt-in list would be much more effective. ---
**Author:** ![vince66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/58956e/32.png) [@vince66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vince66)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/35 "2002-11-20T06:26:31Z")
Just wanted to offer a handy retort not comment on constitutional relevance. Two young fundamentalists come to my door attempting to save my soul,sweet they were, barely legal. When I offered to have them in for a threesome on the floor, they turned and ran. That day I truly enjoyed my freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/36 "2002-11-20T06:40:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > \*\*Freedom of speech isn’t even \*that \*broad. There are many types of speech which are not “free” (sorry to ruin your image of America). No, you aren’t really ruining our image. For purposes of this discussion, we are talking about freedom to advocate ideas, not freedom to lie under oath or freedom to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. Introducting these tangential things are nothing but a red herring to detract from the real issues. > [@](#): > > Free speech is a great thing, but it’s so far from absolute that it’s the exception, not the rule. If you are trying to say we don’t have freedom of speech because we can’t photocopy the contents of a Novel and give them away for free (copyright infringement), or go on TV and call an innocent person a child molester (slander), or can’t go to Iraq and tell Saddam our nuclear launch codes (national security), I’m not buying it. > [@](#): > > Proselytizing serves absolutely no public good (quite the opposite, in fact). I think saying “Vote Republican” does absolutely no public good. In fact, it distresses and annoys me greatly to hear that. But once I try to take away YOUR right to go around advocating the Republican party (or whatever party you are in favor in), it just opens up a huge slippery slope that lets us ban whatever speech is unpopular at the time. > [@](#): > > It should be highly regulated. Even an opt-out list is not good enough; an opt-in list would be much more effective. \*\* If we did that, than only popular accepted religious beliefs could be spread. That isn’t free by any means. You are just as free as a Jehovah’s Witness to knock on doors and convert people to your beliefs, even if your belief is Atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/37 "2002-11-20T09:25:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Just because it’s speech doesn’t mean it’s per se protected. Fraudulent advertising is not protected speech. In my humble opinion, proselytizing should not be protected speech either, at least not until one of the religions is proven to be the right one. This is a bit long, but I think this quote from the Supreme Court is enlightening. This opinion pertains to a different issue than religious proseltyzing, but nevertheless it is still pertinant to this discussion. HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL, 485 U.S. 46 (1988): > [@](#): > > At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. “[T]he freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 503 -504 (1984). We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. **The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a “false” idea.** Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974). As Justice Holmes wrote, “when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . .” Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting opinion).[emphasis added] ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/38 "2002-11-20T12:20:52Z")
Excellent citation, Blalron. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/39 "2002-11-20T13:30:00Z")
Okay, I should have worded the question better (or less concisely: the Constitution could “allow” stuff or it could “prohibit the government from banning” stuff. Practically, it works out pretty much the same.) The distinction between banned speech and permitted speech seems arbitrary, though, at this point. As Kalt notes, they’re finding exceptions to free speech all over the place, and I don’t get why the absolute freedom to 'believe" as you choose is interfered with by a prohibition on the speech. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2002, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546/40 "2002-11-20T14:07:52Z")
But the point is that a restriction on speech is problematic whether or not it infringes freedom of belief; the constitution does not favour restriction on speech _per se_ and, to attack a restriction as unconsitutional, it is not necessary to show that the prohibited speech amounts to the exercise of religion. Put it this way. Every law restricting freedom of speech is constitutionally questionable. If the law is challenged, the onus is on the government to justify the restriction by reference to some value which the justices consider sufficiently important to warrant the restriction. “I don’t like/don’t agree with what is being said” is _never_ an acceptable justification. So, to those who would restrict proselytising, what is the justification which would support the restriction? Bear in mind that the restriction must be proportional to the justification (e.g. the justification for a law requiring silence in libraries would not support a law requiring silence in all academic and educational institutions). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-part-of-the-constitution-permits-prostylitzing/137546.md?page=3)