- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 16,693
- Reaction score
- 5,632
- Location
- There's my hat.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
"The only thing that I am guilty of is poor taste." -Larry Flint
The "original intention" is a mirage. Although written by one person (Madison), the intentions of those who ratified it are very diverse.Based on my understanding of the original intended interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it was only intended to protect the free expression of ideas and constructive criticism of the government. Things which it was not intended to grant unlimited protection to, for example, would be obscenity, threats, or forms of 'expression' which don't qualify as real expression of "ideas".
(Cross-dressing is a great evil? Seriously?)Unfortunately in the 1970s the Amendment was intentionally mis-interpreted to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) which serve no legitimate cultural purpose to fall under the veil of "protected speech", even though they don't genuinely qualify as as such, and serve only to produce degenerative moral effects on society, and give degenerate individuals the false belief that they have a "right" to engage in obscenity and degeneracy.
Based on my understanding of the original intended interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it was only intended to protect the free expression of ideas and constructive criticism of the government. Things which it was not intended to grant unlimited protection to, for example, would be obscenity, threats, or forms of 'expression' which don't qualify as real expression of "ideas".
Unfortunately in the 1970s the Amendment was intentionally mis-interpreted to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) which serve no legitimate cultural purpose to fall under the veil of "protected speech", even though they don't genuinely qualify as as such, and serve only to produce degenerative moral effects on society, and give degenerate individuals the false belief that they have a "right" to engage in obscenity and degeneracy.
Personally I feel that the 1st Amendment should be put under the microscope and not off limits; and ideally our nation and culture would likely fare better if it were restored to a more classical definition which distinguished between obscenity and degenerate expression and actual "speech", or at least didn't circumvent the rights of states to enforce their own obscenity laws.
Based on my understanding of the original intended interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it was only intended to protect the free expression of ideas and constructive criticism of the government. Things which it was not intended to grant unlimited protection to, for example, would be obscenity, threats, or forms of 'expression' which don't qualify as real expression of "ideas".
Unfortunately in the 1970s the Amendment was intentionally mis-interpreted to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) which serve no legitimate cultural purpose to fall under the veil of "protected speech", even though they don't genuinely qualify as as such, and serve only to produce degenerative moral effects on society, and give degenerate individuals the false belief that they have a "right" to engage in obscenity and degeneracy.
Personally I feel that the 1st Amendment should be put under the microscope and not off limits; and ideally our nation and culture would likely fare better if it were restored to a more classical definition which distinguished between obscenity and degenerate expression and actual "speech", or at least didn't circumvent the rights of states to enforce their own obscenity laws.
Based on my understanding of the original intended interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it was only intended to protect the free expression of ideas and constructive criticism of the government. Things which it was not intended to grant unlimited protection to, for example, would be obscenity, threats, or forms of 'expression' which don't qualify as real expression of "ideas".
Unfortunately in the 1970s the Amendment was intentionally mis-interpreted to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) which serve no legitimate cultural purpose to fall under the veil of "protected speech", even though they don't genuinely qualify as as such, and serve only to produce degenerative moral effects on society, and give degenerate individuals the false belief that they have a "right" to engage in obscenity and degeneracy.
Personally I feel that the 1st Amendment should be put under the microscope and not off limits; and ideally our nation and culture would likely fare better if it were restored to a more classical definition which distinguished between obscenity and degenerate expression and actual "speech", or at least didn't circumvent the rights of states to enforce their own obscenity laws.