the Constitution

Amendment 1: 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.

These are the famous first words of the first amendment of the US constitution. Yet how many US citizens know them, or let alone know them, but understand them? The US is a nation of people ignorant of the reality that is around them. Those who are aware use this to their advantages and in due course cause more problems than can be resolved. What this first amendment means to the US and those who reside within as citizens is both crucial and debated, and in this article what it means and what Free Speech is will be explained.
First a history lesson; what was the reason behind the creation of the constitution?
(I would suspect few if any of you reading this know this off the top of your heads, and a handful of you are going "oh, I know, I'll look it up, wikipedia anyone?") The constitution was created as an agreement among those as citizens of the thirteen colonies of the confederacy union that defeated the oppressive British rule in said colonies (confederacy should not be confused here for the US southern confederacy during the civil war). This agreement was to assure the freedoms that were suppressed under the British rulers, among one of which was the freedom of religious choice. Many colonists were in the Americas as punishment for speaking against the crown in favor of their ideals and religious beliefs. Hence the first amendment was born. An inalienable right that all people have the right to their own religious beliefs had the right to make those beliefs known and practiced, and to assemble as a group to practice that religion, and to petition the government in case of oppression in order to assure that freedom.

In the act of producing this amendment, this right, as a set law the US government affirmed and indirectly assured the freedom of speech for the last three hundred years in the US. However, as many articles have claimed, the subject matter of free speech has escalated from this simple idealism of freedom to choose. From a time period where piety was still upheld in the US, freedom of speech has exceedingly been placed as the forefront protection for discrimination and hate.

Breaking down the amendment's words its meaning is precise and clear. "Congress (law makers) shall make no law (cannot make any law, pass any law, ratify or justify any amendment, rule, restriction, code etc) respecting an establishment of religion (that enforces the ideals, rules, morals, or reasoning of a religion) or prohibiting the free exercise there of (or restricting the religions practiced-that is Christians can't force laws that prohibit Wiccans etc) or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (preventing free speech in any media, in any form, in any class of people, age, color, or creed.) or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (people have the right to assemble as a group so long as doing so is peaceful and causes no direct interference with those not involved in the meeting.) and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (That is, to ask through lawsuit or direct petition of the government to fix, or compensate for those actions which the people did not agree to.)"
Looking strictly at the sections in reference to free speech, this means that people may carry any opinion they wish, express it in any way they wish, so long as it does not directly interfere with the ability of others to act with in their own rights (not just those of the first amendment either). This is where the complexity exists, where do the rights of the individual end and meet the rights of the whole?

When it comes to schools, as an example, students retain their constitutional rights, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of other students, or as long as it does not prove to be a threat to other students. This is the reasoning behind not allowing weapons into schools, not allowing disparaging speech targeted towards others. One article on Associated Content (by Mike White) spoke of a student who wore an anti-gay t-shirt on the Day of Silence. Said student was punished for wearing the t-shirt on the grounds of creating a negative message. Though two circuit courts denied repeal of the schools decisions to punish the student the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision. This begs a question of whose rights are being affected here, the single students, or the other students the message of the t-shirt was directed to? Did the t-shirt function to interfere with the Day of Silence and those acting peaceably in agreed assembly to not speak and to remain silent? The act of both parties was to convey a specific message and neither directly impacted upon the capability of the opposing parties to perform upon and with in their own rights. Thus the student was entitled to wear the t-shirt. Yet another problem exists then, using this as precedence, would not other students who wore other shirts and apparel to express their selves be with in their rights as well? To what extent is free speech in media (mediums) to be accepted? If the first amendment was abided by wholly then all t-shirts should be allowed, those which support illegal drug use, those which promote drinking, neo-Nazism that denounces anything but the Arian race, and so on.

There is a line that schools must create that restricts the opinions of students to ensure the safety and atmosphere of the school. In which case, if the t-shirt the student wore did in fact in some way insight actions that prevented the rights or interfered with the rights of other students it should have been prohibited. It is one thing to decide not to speak, no one can make you speak, but people can complain about an offensive t-shirt. These restrictions ensure the safety of the students.

So what is freedom of speech, it is the right to have, practice, share, and endorse any idealism, thought, or act, through speech and mediums, so long as it does not disturb or directly inhibit the rights of others. Further, if the 9th amendment of the constitution is noted "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The rights of the single (in this case the student with the anti-gay t-shirt) cannot be the basis to restrict the freedom of others, nor can the freedom of others be the basis of restricting his freedom of speech, except with in the precepts of a school.

A, but, anti-gay, gay rights what about those? Well the first amendment is simple here; laws that are made to enforce the idealism of a specific religion cannot be made. Further, by the ninth amendment, the rights of all other citizens cannot be used as the basis to restrict the rights of the few, and further yet, all rights afforded to the majority must be afforded to the minority. So all of these elections being held to pass laws banning gay marriage and restricting gay couple rights, they are simply illegal and unconstitutional.

Oh but it gets better, with in the constitution its self there is yet another that prevents these laws. The fourteenth amendment states:
1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Marriage is a privilege; neither the federal government nor the state governments can make laws that prevent marriage between gay couples. Further yet, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property". Liberty, the act of freedom of choice in all manners of the person's life; immunity from arbitrary exercise(s) of authority; political independence; the personal freedom from servitude, confinement, or oppression, this is what liberty is.

So before choices are made, before acts to prevent free speech and free choice are made, before illegal laws are passed at the expense of rights and the money of the tax payer, keep in mind the very rights that all US citizens share. Keep in mind that "an injustice somewhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (Martin Luther King Jr.).

Constitution quotes provided by http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

Appeal Filed Concerning Free Speech of Students Opposed to Homosexuality
February 09, 2007 by
Mike White
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/146427/appeal_filed_concerning_free_speech_pg2.html?cat=17