Explain to me the first amendment united states

[justasking111]

The first amendment seems to me to be quite straightforward, am I out of step with todays requirements for this. Quote below.

"First Amendment Text. The first amendment reads: 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."

Are you being deliberately cryptic? What are "today's requirements"?

Are you looking to establish a religion in the US? Hold an assembly? Defame someone? Sue for defamation? I think we need context - it's a very broad amendment.

I can only assume he doesn't like freedom of speech and freedom of the press to report on whatever they wish.

The pair of them are utterly incapable of taking any amount of criticism. Yet they'll heap it on others in spades.

What's the issue?

Prince Harry made a remark in some podcast about the First Amendment, some American rent-a-gob types aren't happy and are getting frothy about it.

I call thinly veiled H&M bash thread.

@BlatantlyNameChanged

Prince Harry made a remark in some podcast about the First Amendment, some American rent-a-gob types aren't happy and are getting frothy about it.

I call thinly veiled H&M bash thread.

It is not a veiled attempt at bashing, just wondering why all these amendments are so important, in the UK laws get amended, updated in our society depending on the needs at the time, society moves on, we become better educated. Why can`t the amendments be tweaked updated as and when it is found necessary.

The american constitution seems somewhat outdated when I think about it.

Yup, the US never makes laws impacting the 1st amendment, any part of it. That whole branch of constitutional law is just for show. The Supreme Court should just go home - waste of taxpayer dollars.

The american[sic] constitution seems somewhat outdated when I think about it.
In what way?

Of course the constitution gets updated over time as situations change. That’s why there have been 27 Amendments since it was written. Obviously other laws have been brought in through Acts and Bills over the years too, just like anywhere else. But the constitution defines the government and what it can and cannot do, it protects the basic rights of all who live here, and those things remain.

The irony that someone has made a podcast criticizing the right to free speech is lost on some.

The Constitution also gets "updated" through judicial interpretation. Probably the latest best example of that is same-sex marriage.

The UK is an outlier in not having a written constitution. That makes it much easier to change laws. In countries such as the US that have written constitution, constitutional laws are not frequently changed because they are considered as the basic building blocks of the law, and should only be rarely changed, if ever. In the case of the First Amendment above, those short lines are designed to prevent a tyrannical government from restricting some of people's most basic rights. Anyone suggesting changing this law would be suspected of acting on behalf of tyranny. So which right are you suggesting be removed from the constitution - the right to free speech, the right to religion, the right to peaceful assembly or the right to appeal to the government? You've specifically said this amendment is outdated, so which right do you want removed or changed?

@SenecaFallsRedux

The Constitution also gets "updated" through judicial interpretation. Probably the latest best example of that is same-sex marriage.

What is judicial interpretation? I know of same sex marriage, would legalising marijuana be another interpretation?

@Snoozer11

I can only assume he doesn't like freedom of speech and freedom of the press to report on whatever they wish.

The pair of them are utterly incapable of taking any amount of criticism. Yet they'll heap it on others in spades.

This, surely.

Freedom of the press is paramount though, and you can't pick and choose the bits you want to be free about as it suits you.

@BritWifeinUSA

Of course the constitution gets updated over time as situations change. That’s why there have been 27 Amendments since it was written. Obviously other laws have been brought in through Acts and Bills over the years too, just like anywhere else. But the constitution defines the government and what it can and cannot do, it protects the basic rights of all who live here, and those things remain.

The irony that someone has made a podcast criticizing the right to free speech is lost on some.

Apparently Prince Harry said the First Amendment was "bonkers" before going on to admit he didn't really know what it meant.

I'm not surprised - it must be a shock to him living somewhere with rights to free speech that aren't dependent on what expensive lawyers you can afford, and where they reject a State Church, rather than having a family member as the head of it.

As a Brit I can find a lot of criticise the USA for, but the constitutional rights to free speech, no established church and freedom of religion aren't any of them.

IMHO we could benefit from a proper constitution instead of one made up by and misused by rich people.

@DynamoKev

The american[sic] constitution seems somewhat outdated when I think about it. In what way?

Well for instance the right to bear arms was made before the era of semi automatic machine guns.

"The American constitution seems outdated?!!!!" Your English law is ancient in comparison! I hope this is sarcasm!

"In countries such as the US that have written constitution, constitutional laws are not frequently changed because they are considered as the basic building blocks of the law, and should only be rarely changed, if ever."

The main difference to "ordinary laws" is that constitutional amendments (in the US or otherwise) usually have high requirements for passing (e.g. they may e.g. require a 3/4 majority in more than one institution, e.g. in both an upper and a lower house), usually requiring a cross-party effort, which is difficult to achieve politically.

"Judicial interpretation" is when there is a dispute as to the constitution (as amended) means and the appropriate court interprets the constitution (exactly the same way they do when applying normal laws).

I don't really understand what Harry was talking about, but the First Amendment is probably the most sacrosanct part of the US Constitution for most Americans. And as I understand it, it provides broader rights for speech and publication than exist in the UK. So if someone suggests that it should be restricted, well, yes, that will piss people off.

An example of judicial interpretation:

School requires prayer in assembly. Atheist student sues school. There is nothing in the Constitution about school prayer. Supreme Court says school prayer is establishment of religion and is thus illegal.

@SenecaFallsRedux

I don't really understand what Harry was talking about, but the First Amendment is probably the most sacrosanct part of the US Constitution for most Americans. And as I understand it, it provides broader rights for speech and publication than exist in the UK. So if someone suggests that it should be restricted, well, yes, that will piss people off.

That’s it, in a nut shell. This is a country that came about after fighting a war of independence from a tyrannical king in another country. As s result, the constitution is considered a safeguard against something like that every happening again. So it is very important to Americans. I am a naturalized American and part of the process to do so is to swear on oath that you will support and defend the constitution. I have read it and when you live here and understand the history of this country’s birth then you will understand why that is so important to everyone.

Not really a good look, a member of the British royal family criticising the constitution of the republic that threw us off as colonisers. Also a sign of privilege and entitlement to feel able to publicly make remarks like that when you're seeking citizenship (I assume) of that country. Good thing for him the First Amendment exists and guarantees his free speech, eh?

@justasking111 have you read the text of the Second Amendment? It’s not about the weapons. It’s about defending yourself from a tyrannical government.

It was later decided by the Supreme Court that this included the right to defend yourself and your property. But the original intention of it was about the freedom of the nation.

I think it's a crucial and excellent amendment (the first amendment), and I wish it could somehow be brought more to the fore in trying to deal with 'cancel culture'.

I assumed Harry said it was 'bonkers' because he doesn't like some of the stuff written about himself or Meg over there in his new home, and he thinks there should be limitations to free speech? I don't think he's really thought this through.

@GCAcademic

Not really a good look, a member of the British royal family criticising the constitution of the republic that threw us off as colonisers. Also a sign of privilege and entitlement to feel able to publicly make remarks like that when you're seeking citizenship (I assume) of that country. Good thing for him the First Amendment exists and guarantees his free speech, eh?

He’s a long way off seeking citizenship. He has to be here as a permanent resident for at least 3 years before he can even apply (and that’s assuming they are still married then). And he may not even be a PR. He may be here on a business visa as PR status would affect how much tax he pays. I’ve heard many discussions over here as to his status.

I thought Harry was on an 'exceptional talent' type visa? Or is that Melania's family?