first amendment rights?
103080
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition, and the right to gather peacefully (all in the First Amendment).
93003
Richard H - I hate to tell you this, but Americans do not have a "right to privacy". We certainly have an EXPECTATION of privacy, and hundreds of years of legal standards have reinforced that expectation, but no right to it. If you can find the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, I sure would love to know where.\n\nIt most definitely DOES NOT violate the First Amendment. If it did, there are hundreds of liberal courts in this nation that would have struck it down long ago. Americans are still free to say what they want - even if it is against the government. Look at Al Gore recently when he said ON SAUDI ARABIAN SOIL in a speech sponsored by the BIN LADEN FAMILY that the US committed "terrible abuses against Muslims" after 9/11. Americans can SAY whatever they want - most Americans tend to forget that there are consequences to false or harmful statements. Remember shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater??\n\nThe Patriot Act merely lets intelligence agencies share intelligence to try to put two and two together - which was one of the biggest recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I would love for you to point out documented cases of abuse due to the Patriot Act. You won't find any. The ACLU didn't find any, and if they can't with their resources, I doubt you will, either.\n\nplanksheer - It is NOT open season of First Amendment rights (see above reply to Richard H's uninformed post). The only people who have been denied those rights are detainees classified as terrorists and foreign combatants against the US military. They are not prisoners of war, and they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Geneva Convention right are only conferred upon uniformed soldiers of an organized Army. The President has the legal right to hold them.\n\nGranted, courts have already ruled that the government must begin looking at their cases to hold them further, and the President is complying with that. If he had such disregard for the law and Constitution, President Bush would have waved the big middle finger when ordered to begin reviewing cases.\n\nAnd then we have Jose Padilla. An American who was going to explode a dirty bomb on American soil. He should NEVER see the light of day again. He is a traitor and should be treated as such. He deserves whatever he gets.\n\nPeople should do a little research before they are so quick to condemn something. Especially when their arguments are based in inaccuracies and misinformation. Think for yourselves, people. Don't just regurgitate crap that Michael Moore and his ilk put out.
851554
Every time one of our civil liberties is taken by the government, we are hurt. As a nation, and as a free people. Our own govt is trampling on the fabric of the Constitution, and the core values that this country was founded upon.\n\nPeople ask what rights I personally have lost. The right to counsel. The right to due process. The right to privacy. The right to assemble. Habeas corpus. Unreasonable searches. Warrantless wiretapping. The list of rights and civil liberties that have been trampled on by the Bush regime grows longer every year.\n\nEvery one of those rights stipped away was mine. Just because I never needed to invoke them didn't make them less mine. And just because you haven't needed them yet doesn't make them less yours.\n\nWe only have those rights we choose to defend. Only those rights we can defend. And if we do not defend them, we lose them. Not just for those who need them now -- but for all of us.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment, ...... and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
309636
1. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . U.S. CONST. amend. VI.\n\n2. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . . U.S. CONST. amend. I.\n\n3. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI.\n\n4. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 565 (1980).\n\n5. See id. at 565-75.\n\n6. See id.\n\n7. Id. at 571.\n\n8. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were aware of the potential clash between the First and Sixth Amendments. See Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 547 (1976) ("[I]t is inconceivable that the authors of the Constitution were unaware of the potential conflicts between the right to an unbiased jury and the guarantee of freedom of the press.).
347649
This is NOT a freedom of speech issue. No one has the right to publish on Answers. It would be like sending an article to a newspaper and demanding that they print it because you think that's "free speech." The newspaper has the right to refuse to publish obscene, racist, vile, reprehensible material -- as well as any other material. Yahoo! owns this site and has the right to decide what stays and what goes. If you want true freedom of speech, create your own web site.\n\nBut, that said, I don't think Yahoo! does a good enough job of monitoring this site and enforcing the guidelines they do have. Until they can maintain the current guidelines, which are really the bare minimum for civil discourse, I don't think they should be stricter.
338730
Freedom of speech is up there with freedom of religion in the First Amendment.  You think about why they wanted to put it first, and you have the importance.\n\nCivil rights generally refer to rights under the Constitution as Amended.  That is, generally about the amendments more than the body of the Constitution, except that of course it is the body that gives authority to the Amendments.\n\nSo yes, freedom of speech is one of the most precious rights we have, and we need to guard it with our lives, if necessary.  This is NOT the same thing as claiming the right to say any thing, any where, any time, at any volume.  It is a fundamental right that has to be measured against the other guy's equally fundamental right.  So we have endless case law detail on how, exactly, to implement the fundamental right of freedom of speech.  That's called Constitutional Law, and you get it in law school.\n\nI recommend going to law school to anyone who can.  Even if you never take the bar exam and practice law, the knowledge will serve you well in a variety of fields, most notably business, finance, non-profit foundations, and a host of others.
527274
The US Supreme Court has held that flag burning as an act of protest is "symbolic speech" and therefore protected by the First Amendment.\nHaving said this, I would advise not doing so as the Republicans are looking for an "issue" to whip up the far right.  (Somehow bringing peace and democracy to Iraq doesn't have appeal anymore.)  Nothing brings out the crazies like someone else exercising free speech they don't like.
636984
Through the bill of rights; the first amendment protects our right to freedom of speech. This amendment cannot be changed unless repealed by a vote for another amendment to change this right.
87311
The First Amendment states:\n\nCongress 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.\n\nThe principle is extended generally to Government although there are exceptions for defamatory or offensive speech. As Yahoo is a private company, it can set its own rules providing they are compliant with US or other laws.
541956
Equal rights for all US born citizens and legal immigrants.\n\nAmongst others:\n-government cannot limit free speech (first amendment)\n-government cannot limit right to bear arms (second amendment, liberals try to limit this right all the time)\n-government cannot mandate a religion (though there is no specific requirement for separation of church and state)\n\netc...
592096
Dear Friend,\n\nYes.  But the only "person" who can violate the First Amendment is the government (federal or state).  If a state official, acting under color of law, deprives you of your First Amendment rights, you can sue under what's called a Section 1983 claim.\n\nBut don't sue Godly George W.!\n\nYours in Him,\nFrancesois
468731
Free speech is a right. It has limits. You cannot threaten people. But if you believe they are wrong or sinning, they do not have a right to not be offended, as you are neither threatening them or harming them in any way.\n\nYou cannot punish peoples' thoughts and still be a free nation. \n\nYou have no right to deny others' speech merely because you don't like it. It is not harassment. You are equally free to ignore them or refute them. But if you curtail their rights by bringing government force against them, we've all lost.\n\nThat is a path that leads to oppression of all people.
849817
Ummmm....the US Constitution?
904267
In Britain we do not have a 'bill of rights' but we are given 'free speech'......well that is if you're an immigrant.....as for the rest of us....we just have to grin and bear it....oh what a joy to live in a dictatorship dressed up in 'democratic clothes'!!
319650
Its an "implied right".  Its not in the constitution.
283595
Yes, the constitution does allow the rights of freedom speech, assembly, and religious practice in the 1st amendment.  But because these rights sometimes conflict with eachother (like in your scenario), its pretty safe to say that you have right and liberties as long as they dont interfere with anyone else, or cause other people malicious harm.
299809
YES and Yes. Basically you have rights accorded to by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.....unles they may offend someone.  \n\nI still can't get used to the fairytale, The Pigment Challenged Womyn and the 7 Height Challenged Men.