Hanging on to the First Amendment

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is essential for any democracy to develop and thrive.  Every American should hold it dear.  It prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.  The First Amendment was adopted back in 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer or a Supreme Court Justice, but it seems to me that the words are self-explanatory.  We can peaceably assemble and speak freely.  It is a “right” of every citizen to express his or her views whatever they may be, whether those views are right or wrong.  To give this right (freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble) only to a majority point of view and not to a minority point of view constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.  The same holds true for the freedom of the press.  Any infringement, encroachment, or intrusion (allegations of “fake news” comes close to encroachment) upon that freedom is a violation of the First Amendment.

Today, in the light of Charlottesville and Seattle, the deep divide in our politics, the rhetoric about fake news, the banning of certain religious groups, etc., we must be extremely cautious not to allow our opposition to a certain ideology (no matter how detestable) undermine the very freedom that allows us to peaceably assemble to “counter” that ideology.  The First Amendment gives us the right to peaceably assemble whether we are protesters or counter-protesters. 

A new law (not so easily interpreted as the First Amendment), set forth in the USA Patriot Act, defines domestic terrorism as (a) acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (b) appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and that occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

What a conundrum!  We have rights and restrictions!  “Acts that appear to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” can be interpreted in many ways.  It can be used by a majority or a minority, and even by a government “of the people, for the people and by the people.”  The First Amendment is essential to our survival as a democracy, even when it gives “voice” to despicable ideologies.

A democracy does not consist of "Clay Soldiers" embedded
in the earth, but of people who act!