Leaning Straight Up has an interesting post (tracked back here over the weekend) dealing with a case of misunderstanding of “free speech”. I thought it might be useful to expand on that post a little here, so here’s the key piece I thought missing there:
Amendment I
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.
Now, the language seems very clear, but lawyers being what they are, politicians *spit* being what they are and people in general being what they are, the clear meaning of the words–especially as filtered through the ill-thought-out and often improperly-applied (IMO) 14th amendment–has not survived to this day.
The clear context of “freedom of speech” noted in the amendment is protection of religious and political SPEECH. (The exercise of one’s religious beliefs must include speaking about it, you know). Press and assembly rights covered too, but I’m concerned here about speech. And by “speech” I do NOT mean anything other than actual speech or its obvious analog–given a hat tip by the Framers–of the written word.
Of course the courts have found it necessary to validate their existences by “explaining” speech to mean darned near anything some loony tune can vaguely conceptualize, and so most folks now think of grunts and squeals and thrown excrement as constitutionally protected speech.
But such things are NOT constitutionally protected speech in any world in which a rational reading of the constitution or the debates about the Framing or the amendments is taken to account. No, such things are only constitutionally protected speech is a world dominated by “reality-based” fantasy.
Go read the Leaning Straight Up post. Apply these words to the situation he outlines. Heck, the situation he outlines–folks crying “Wolf” about a boycott of The View sponsors as a way of reining in Rosie O’Donnell’s wild and irresponsible antics–wouldn’t even exist if a society of adults were to actually apply the First Amendment…
Of course, such a society would lack a few other things, like BOTH the Republican’t and Democrappic parties, the ACLU and nearly the entire apparatus of the Mass Media Podpeople’s Hivemind.
You state,’The clear context of “freedom of speech” noted in the amendment is protection of religious and political SPEECH’
I disagree based on the use of semicolons as indicated here.
‘Use a semicolon to separate independent clauses which present closely related ideas’
If you note the placement of the semicolons there are three independent clauses. Speech and press are grouped together as are assembly and redress with religious issues in the first clause. All related but ‘clearly’ independent.
Respectfully, Stanford,
“All related but ‘clearly’ independent.”
Thank you for arguing my point.
🙂
That they are related clearly indicates that the independence you cite is purely syntactical, not semantic.
(“Now there abide these three: phonemes (grunts and squeals and their written analogs), syntax (structure, orthography, etc.) and semantics; and the greatest of these is semantics (meaning).”)
Examine the literature of the time (or of today for that matter). Semi-colons do not denote separate thoughts or concepts. They may or may not imply the separation of concepts, but when used WITH a conjunction it’s a whole new story. Indeed, in formal language of the day (carried over as a poorly grasped appendage to grammar nowadays), the semi-colon often simply replaced commas in longer lists. And please do note the conjunction used. The “ors” are “linking” conjunctions here. “Congress shall make no law respection a or b or c or d… ” As you clearly note in affirming my argument the concepts deparated by the punctuation are “all related”.
As a denoter of meaning here, the semi-colon is miniscule, almost meaningless, except to lawyers or politicians *spit* who have to justify their existences by creating things that are not out of whole cloth (or “penumbras,” so-called).
Its only orthographical excuse in usage here is likely found in this construction:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech… ”
Since a laundry list is being expressed in this amendment, a sub-point (“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) which in outline form would be clearly subordinate to the preceding clause, is denoted as different from the others by use of the semi-colon for the others.
That’s exceptionally common in the English of that time, though less so today except when someone who is better with English than 99.999% of Americans today (and that 99.999% would include me *heh*) gets their hands on the printed word.
In support of my thesis (in the post), note carefully that the drafters of this amendment specifically and consciously, in open debate, rejected the idea that all “expression” is “speech” (as the courts would have it today), but that “expression” did specifically include speech.
Religious exercise, an expression of one’s faith, must include speech where the tenets of that faith require speaking its truths*, but “freedom of speech” does NOT include all forms of expression, so specifically addressing free religious “speech” is unecessary since it’s already covered in “exercise”. Not only that, but the “freedom of speech” clause, as openly debated by the Framers, was specifically tied to political speech, as was freedom of the press and the right of “the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Political.
The only surprising thing about the First Amendment is the presence of the religious expression clause, as it is the only portion of the amendment NOT specifically noted as politically-oriented by the Framers.
Frankly, the Framers were, despite Washington’s assurances to some Jewish groups, almost wholly concerned with “denominational” disputes between Christian churches, and thus were very conscious of the requirement that Christians OPENLY SPEAK their credo as a part of the exercise of their faith. I doubt there was one single solitary Framer–Christian or not–who was unaware of the confrontation Peter and John had with the Sanhedrin over the free exercise of their religious beliefs, which included BOTH words and deeds, spoken and acted out in the public arena.
This is a key passage, foundational in the formation of the establishment clause… and it’s (quite naturally, given the backgrounds of the Framers) drawn from The Acts of the Apostles.
interesting angle David..but please do not get me started on
Rosie, boycotts, or her alleged freedoms!
Perhaps my answer was to brief. This one will be brief too. BTW, I hate when people say ‘you’re making my point’ because that was not my intent. Put another way, I read you post to say that freedom of speech only applies to religion. If I read you correctly. I disagree. But then I am not a constitutional scholar.
I must have missed your psting this reply by an eyelash. I came back the next day and saw no repsonse.
I’ll be back later.
Stanford,
Apologies for being unclear. I had not thought my post could be taken to mean freedom of speech applied only to religious speech, since I tried to be clear that political speech was the other obvious target from the context (and unspoken/written by me, twas also obvious from the discussions of the Framers on the topic).
I’ll try to be clearer in future.
If pointing out that you argue my own point is offensive to you, well, don’t argue my point. *LOL* (Not trying to jerk your chain here; it’s just good, fair debate/rhetoric/argumentation to point out such things. I hate it when folks say that to me, too, mainly when they are right, though. *heh* *slaps self upside head*)
Please do come back, though, because I find your comments to be generally well-thought-out. It’s just this particular one I thought not quite up to your normal standards.
Oh, BTW, I am willing to be argued out of my syntactical reading of the amendment. I still, as of this reading, don’t think the syntax argues for a semantic that differs greatly from my reading of it, but I’m open to persuasion.