Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachean  I don't see how the fact that private businesses can restrict your behavior on their premises constitutes a "flaw in the bill of rights."
The first Amendment means that the government cannot excise words out of your vocabulary, but a business owner certainly can if you wish to remain on the premises and conduct business. |
It's flawed because the language is neither concise nor clear as to its intent. My example was from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the
Schenck v. United States..
Quote:
Facts of the Case
During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.
Question
Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
Conclusion
Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
|
The fact that the second amendment's clarity too was under dispute for so long is testimony to its flawed and confusing language.