Personal Constitution

Where the hell does one start with an essay on the First Amendment? Does anyone really understand just how big and complicated of an issue this has really become? How does one write anything on this subject without coming across as just being belligerent, or just sounding like some sort of history scholar or a dictionary-reading dweeb, or just as someone trying to uphold one side of a debate or another?

The answer: You don't...

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.

There's the rules right there.

Congress shall make no laws respecting my religion or my freedom to exercise my religion. But our elected officials sure have managed to pick one religion and run with it, haven't they? But apparently, these days, not having any religion is perfectly okay to be verbally stoned in public for.

Congress shall not abridge my freedom of speech. Unfortunately that only states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The First Amendment doesn't say anything about the President or the House of Representatives abridging the freedom of speech.

The Press is laughable to say the least. Show me a news agency that doesn't offer up editorials in some way shape of form that also reflects the views and attitudes of those who own the media. No, the press is not supposed to be abridged by Congress, but their own owners abridge them nonetheless.

The right to peacefully assemble in protest and petition the government for a redress of grievances; Congress shall make no laws respecting that either, but they won't make a law stopping the local militia from rubbing pepper spray into the eyes of those assembling peacefully in an effort to get them to retreat and disperse. And the process of petitioning the government has become such a long and drawn out process that by the time a good reason for doing so reaches the eyes of the proper elected or appointed officials, the damage has probably already been done.

So, again I ask, how does one write anything on this subject without coming across as just being belligerent, or just sounding like some sort of history scholar or a dictionary-reading dweeb, or just as someone trying to uphold one side of a debate or another?

The answer is still: You don't...

This is where the individual citizen has to step up and re-establish the path that the founding fathers began. The men and women who started this country and played the most vital roles in our nation becoming free from the oppression of a monarchy, did so without The First Amendment, or even The Constitution backing them up. They rose up as individuals, sparse from one another at first, few in numbers though that would not last, and unknowing if anyone else would stand with them. They made the decision to risk what little they had sweated and bled to create in a new land; they made the decision to risk not only their own lives, but possibly also the lives of their kin, their spouses, and their children. They were individuals who led lives as everything from seamstresses to foundation owners, common townspeople to people who were appointed under the monarchy.

Every single action taken by every single man, woman and child in an effort to rip themselves away from the monarchy was deemed as treason in the highest and punishable by death in any number of horrible ways. Yet they stood anyway.

Even when the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, those signers of the Declaration weren't just putting their names on a sheet of paper. They were exercising a new and dangerous right while standing up as representatives of the people, and putting their own lives at the forefront of all others that stood with them. That was 1776 and The Constitution of the United States was not to be written until 1778, with The First Amendment being added in 1789.

So one more time I will ask, but with a complete answer to follow: How does one write anything on this subject without coming across as just being belligerent, or sounding like some sort of history scholar or a dictionary-reading dweeb, or just as someone trying to uphold one side of a debate or another?

The answer is still: You don't, but instead you decide to hold true to your beliefs, live knowing that you are free to express yourself while being prepared for any positive or negative consequences from your expressions. Knowing that you hold freedom of speech and expression true to your mindset and lifestyle, you should only apologize for your speech and expression should it be made clear that it truly was uncalled for or too extreme in its nature. Be true enough to the freedom of speech to realize that if some of the highest elected officials in the land are incapable of passing laws against The First Amendment, then all other lesser entities (i.e. lesser government officials, corporations, groups and/or entities, individuals, etc.) are also incapable of stopping one from exercising his or her right to freedom of speech, though they will try to justify ways for doing so. We as individuals should give no less consideration to another individual than we would expect from him or her for we are all entitled individually.

In short, and in consideration of all other examples that could be given here; you don't just talk or debate about your right to freedom of speech, you live it. And if someone tries to stop you from exercising your right to freedom of speech, have the forethought to know when and how it is appropriate to fight that oppression, but fight for it nonetheless!