How do you think the Constitution's framers envisioned the First Amendment right to free speech?

[bluestateguy]

Sometimes I wonder if they intended for the First Amendment to be so flagrantly abused by the rabble rousers, the shouters, the noisemakers, demagogues and whiners. I sometimes wonder if that is what they intended. Not that the above mentioned people should be carted off to jail; I don't think the framers would have condoned that either.

But I do think that just maybe what the framers had in mind what that the First Amendment was more applicable to men with enlightened and articulate opinions, free of passions and raw emotion. In other words, maybe what they envisioned when they thought of free speech was two lawyers or two statesmen having a thoughtful conversation and a friendly exchange of views, rather than two rabble rousers screaming at each other with incompressible drivel.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Pretty clear that some did not

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Freedom of speech is based on Franois-Marie Arouet aka Voltair's ideas

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

No, freedom of speech is not just applicable to "men with enlightened and articulate opinions, free of passions and raw emotion." If it were, then anyone without those qualities would not be free.

What needs to be brought home is that though people are free to say things, they hold a responsibility for what they say, especially when it insights people to violence. The rhetoric of violence on the right, whether it is "second amendment remedies," crosshairs on a map, carrying guns into political rallies to show a right to water the tree of liberty, or a thousand other incitements carries a heavy responsibility.

[sharesunited]

3. Speech was often inflammatory in their day. And occasionally resulted in violence.

Despite how messy, freedom to let the chips fall where they may was the highest value.

That's also how the misguided believers in the 2nd Amendment feel about their guns and ammo.

[stellanoir]

4. My guess is

that it was never intended to be inclusive of deceitful incitement of violence.

But what the heck do I know. . .?

I never comprehended how it was inclusive of flag burning either. That affront always qualified as desecration of federal property in my smallish book.

Silly me.

[WinkyDink]

7. Flags are not "federal property." And where are most manufactured?

I happen to be a stickler for flag etiquette (inclement weather, yada yada), but I'm a bigger stickler for freedom of speech/expression.

And "incitement to violence" is not under the rubric.

[WinkyDink]

5. As they wrote it, that's how. Can't be clearer.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[bluestateguy]

11. OK, let's work from that

If "Congress shall make no law," then how about a law passed by a state legislature outlawing all hateful or inflammatory speech?

Be careful with the literalist approach to reading the Constitution.

[beyurslf]

12. No, let's go ahead and be literal with it. The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights

to the states so a state cannot make a law to do that.

[bluestateguy]

13. That is not how it worked out

The Courts only gradually incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states and not all at the same time. For example, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the 4th Amendment was incorporated to the states, and it was not until McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to the states and localities.

[bemildred]

14. I thought we was talking about the framers intent, not what the USSC decided later.

Like the whole idea was to get back to framers intent or something.

[cbdo2007]

6. The First Amendment just says Congress can make no law restricting free speech - it doesn't

say that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, about whoever you want and not be held accountable for it.

[bemildred]

8. Exactly. nt

[WinkyDink]

9. Yes, there are slander and libel laws. Who is unaware of this? But these laws

have standards of proof beyond "dislike."

[cbdo2007]

15. Right, they have to show malice and that damage was done.

Certainly, the damage was done yesterday.

[Iggo]

10. Jesus! We're attacking the First Amendment now?

Where am I?