Can you describe to me what exactly the 1st  Amendment is?
375696
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. \n\nTwo clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.\n\nThe most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.\n\nDespite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.\n\nThe right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups that engage and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the based on an individuals current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with first amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups.\n\nThe right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through the courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.\n\nNOTE: Seperaion of Ch
14924
The U.S. Constitution is the basis for all law in the U.S.  It describes the how the government of the Unitied States operates.  It also grants people certain rights.\n\nOf course, the present administration has great contempt for the Constitution.
67577
You're correct. \n\nThe Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is \n"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
647541
Good question...I modified a bit to current times.  BTW - I realize this is for homework, but I thought it fun anyway.\n\nAmendment 1: Congress shall pass no law prohibiiting a reasonable establishment of religion, restricting a public voice offering opinion except in the case of sedition, preventing the gathering of people to voice said opinion or any other provided reasonable safety be held, nor restricting the press to publish opinion apart from matters that severely address the safety of the nation as a whole, or the call upon the government to address the grievences of the people.\n\nAmendment 2\nArms shall be held in the case of a standing militia recognized by the government of the United States.\n\nAmendment 3\nQuartering of troops shall not be forced unless law has been passed and the owner has been notified.\n\nAmendment 4\nSearches of persons and properties shall be conducted only when the person or owner of said property is well notiifed and informed.  Seizures of properties shall have reasonable consent from the court and written notice given to the owner or location of said property defining to what property is to be seized.
266260
The First Amendment reads:\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\nThat means that criticism of the Government or of individuals is generally allowed. If it is libellous, then public officials can take legal action to defend their reputation. \n\nIn the world wars, the Supreme Court upheld laws against sedition. However, since the second world war, the Supreme Court has generally found in favour of free speech. In Yates vs Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that the Smith Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas". In other words, a person would have to specifically have to advocate violent action against the US Government in order to be seditious.
822264
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html\nHere are 3
741490
See US Constitution:  Bill of Rights.\n\nAs written, not as perverted by activist justices.
336042
When I give my regular talks on the Constitution the first question I ask is: "What 5 rights are protected by the 1st Amendment" I also ask "How many amendments are in the Constitution".  If you just read your copy you can come up with many more.  \n\nIn Liberty,\nEric H. Smith\nwww.erichsmith.com
1001124
Oh, I am wounded to the core.\n\nAre you familiar with a document that conservatives shredded and used for toilet paper called the Constitution?  Well, the First Amendment  to that document, which Bush is reported to have called "just a GD piece of paper" guarantees free speech as not only a value, but a right.\n\nIt is not an absolute freedom, of course, there are restrictions against its abuse, such as libel and defamation, obscenity, incitement to crime, and sedition.  Although they have been rejected by American courts, some arguments have been made that speech which is offensive whould also fall under restricted speech, such as using the phrase "sissy liberal talk."
531123
For the people that don't know what that is:\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/\n The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nIt really is sad to see those soldiers fighting for freedom when freedom is being taken away.
1137809
Start with the first amendment. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, assembly and petition.\nDo you belong to a religious minority? Write about how the bill of rights protects your freedom to worship the way you want.\nOr maybe you have an unpopular opinion. The first amendment protects your right to speak out.\n\nIf you have ever been in trouble with the law (or know someone who was), you can write about how the bill of rights protects people who are accused of a crime.\n\nI have been collecting signatures on a petition to bring the troops home recently, and it has been an interesting exercise in the first amendment. The right to question the government is the most fundamental of rights -- it underlies everything else.
277002
Absolutely.  It's freedom of speech.  Its the first ammendment of the constitution.(Bill of rights section)
913674
The Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States--ranks alongside the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as one of the nation's most treasured documents. Since its adoption in 1791, the Bill of Rights has served as the cornerstone of basic American freedoms. Its laws specify the fundamental rights and most cherished liberties of the American people and protect them from the whims of popular majority opinions and abusive government officials.\nWhat the Bill of Rights Says\n\nThe first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights set forth specific guarantees and liberties. The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the American people have rights that are not even specified in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. (The Federalists argued for this particular amendment, stating that it would be impossible to list all of the rights and liberties that should be protected.)\n\nThe Tenth Amendment emphasizes the national character of the United States constitutional system. It declares that the states or people retain those "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution."\n\nMost people, however, believe that their most important rights are those guaranteed by the First Amendment. Commonly called "First Amendment freedoms," these are the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, and press, as well as the right of the people to assemble and to petition a government.\n\nOther vital provisions contained in the first eight amendments also deal with the rights of individuals. They are designed to protect people against inconsistent or abusive government, particularly in criminal proceedings.\n\nFor example, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures (either of themselves or of their property and possessions) by law enforcement officials.\n\nThe Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy, which means that someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment also states that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves (self-incrimination), and it guarantees "due process," which means people accused of a crime must be properly notified of the charges and given a fair hearing.\n\nThe Sixth Amendment establishes the right of an accused person to a public trial by jury. The accused also has the right to have a lawyer, to confront hostile witnesses, and to obtain witnesses in his or her defense.\n\nFinally, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" (either mental or physical) on those convicted of a crime.\n\nThe remaining amendments (the Second, Third, and Seventh) do not cover individual rights in criminal proceedings but address other specific concerns. The Second Amendment is the most noteworthy and controversial of these remaining amendments. After noting the need for a "well regulated militia" (a body of citizen soldiers called to serve during times of emergency or war), this amendment declares that the people's right "…to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."\n\nThe Third Amendment prevents the government from making citizens shelter soldiers in their homes. This amendment was drafted in response to abuses by British forces during the Revolutionary War.\n\nThe Seventh Amendment was included to meet the demands of many Anti-Federalists who wanted to insure trial by jury in civil suits.\n\nToday, for all intents and purposes, the fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights apply with equal force to both the national and the state governments.\n\nState Bills of Rights\n\nAll of the fifty state constitutions contain a bill of rights. The Illinois Bill of Rights borrows from the Declaration of Independence in stating, "All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Some
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.
903612
Were you in a coma when our head monkey created "free speech zones" to eliminate the first amendment rights of people any where else.\n\nAccording to the constitution the entire US is a free speech zone.\n\nStart the Impeachment proceedings.
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.
713207
For a technical historical answer, contact Jon Roland of the Constitution Society http://www.constitution.org\n\nTraditionally, the Bill of Rights defines specific rights of citizens that were not spelled out in the Constitution, in an attempt to reinforce these as reserved to the people where government could not infringe: (1) free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or of the press, right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government (2) right to bear arms with respect to militia (3) freedom from quartering of soldiers (4) right to security and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (5) freedom from self-incrimination (6 and 7) right to speedy public trial, legal defense and other due process procedures, and right to trial by jury and freedom from double jeopardy (8) freedom from cruel or unusual punishment or excessive fines or bails (9 and 10) protection of rights regardless of enumeration and reservation of rights to States or the people not otherwise delegated or prohibited under the Constitution.\n\nHowever, if the existence of these laws in writing were enough to reinforce equal checks and balances, there would not have been a need to add the Fourteenth Amendment about "equal protection under the law." I find this concept of "equal protection" necessary to apply the Bill of Rights fairly to respect the consent of all the governed parties, instead of favoring some interests over others in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service (see Public Law 96-303, 1980).\n\nIn practice, I find that only the educated practice and agreed enforcement of Constitutional rights guarantees these to anyone. The First Amendment especially reflects natural laws that govern all humanity -- every human being desires free exercise to act, free speech and press to communicate, and the right peaceably to assemble and to petition as part of due process. Collectively, our individual rights become the three functions of government -- from establishing and interpreting laws and contracts by written and spoken word, to exercising individual freedom and authority, and assembling in protest or petition to represent and defend our interests whether in courts or Congress, or school, churches or other institutions.\n\nAs individuals learn to balance our natural rights with those of others, and between the level of the individual to the collective level of government, that is when we will realize the checks and balances intended between the three branches of government, as well as the levels of government of local, state, and federal. \n\nhttp://www.houstonprogressive.org/isocracy.html