Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

message: WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAW DO? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.116.121 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 November 2002.
:Appoint me to the Supreme Court, and you'll find out.
:But seriously folks, shouldn't First Amendment be redirected/merged here?
-- IHCOYC 00:19 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:To answer the question is in itself highly diffcult. In essence, the First Amendment portion on freedom of speech does nothing until it is violated. That is to say, it gives you the right to speak your mind (either in print or vocally) until you run into one of the artificially created restrictions that are placed upon it--the term "artifically created" is not to imply that they are without merit, rather that they exist to protect others and the nation as a whole and are not present in the wording of the amendment itself. This concept is accepted by most. Once you encounter the limitations then your right to speak on the topic is restricted. Most people don't ever encounter such a problem. Some examples would be the telling of something that might hurt others, inspire others to cause harm, legal libel or slander, fraud, the relay of national secrets (like selling military secrets to another country), and others.
:The biggest issue (often) is with pornography and obscenity. These are nebulous topics that can't be tied down directly, thus the concept of "community standards" will come into play.
:I don't even think I touched on 0.0001% of what you were asking for, but I hope that helps in some way to answer your query. -- 206.156.242.39 21:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: the legislature makes laws, the executive executes them and the judiciary interprets them. If there were no legislation, there would be nothing for the executive to enforce or the judiciary to interpret; thus, those two branches can only act in the presence of authorizing legislation.
This doesn't seem accurate at all.  At best it is a gross oversimplification.  The executive, for instance, makes a number of actions which are not initiated by the legislature.
:The duty of the executive is only to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, under Article II. If there is no law, the executive cannot act (save in such circumstances as the Constitution authorizes). Of course, the President issues executive orders and the like. These, however, are issued only to ensure the faithful execution of the laws: if there were no laws, there would be no executive orders to ensure their execution. Thus, constitutional or legal authority is required for actions. -- Emsworth 20:34, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
::You've ignored the majority of Article II.  The President, in addition to taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, is commander in chief of the armed forces, makes treaties with the advice and consent of congress, appoints various government officials, gives state of the union addresses, receives ambassadors and other government officials, and commissions the officers of the United States.  This is all in addition to those inherent powers that the Supreme Court has deemed the Executive to have.  By no means is the President limited to merely executing laws created by congress. anthony (see warning) 01:38, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Executive orders

message: In 1988, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell extended the "actual malice" standard, protecting satirists from libel suits based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
This case wasn't even about a libel suit.  The jury had already found Hustler not guilty of the libel suit.  I've reverted back to the original wording. anthony (see warning) 01:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We do need to indicate, though, that that case only applies to a narrow context - satire of public figures. - jredmond 02:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the case applied the "actual malice" standard to all suits based on intentional infliction of emotional distress.  I'll look up the actual text and try to fix this if it isn't true. anthony (see warning) 14:05, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.  OK, I'll fix that. anthony (see warning) 14:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual malice standard

message: Someone should add that the first amendment even protects commercial speech (i.e., commercials and advertisments) to a certain degree under the Central Hudson case.
* I agree.  I will work on it (if someone else doesn't by then) after taking bar exam next month :{   --Lenehey 06:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial speech 

message: The Establishment Clause link redirects right back to the article.  Why is it even a link?--ShadowMagus 00:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishment Clause redirect 

message: I attempted to differentiate between obscenity, which is generally afforded no protection, and pornography which is subject to some valid regulation.
--Skinjob 02:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Obscenity and Pornography

message: Maybe the article should make mention of the GRAPES mnemonic for remembering the rights? I think it stands for this:
*Grievances
*Religion
*Assembly
*Press
*Establishment
*Speech
I may be wrong, so it may be good to double-check that, but I think that's what it is. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRAPES Mnemonic