Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 3

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 30 October 2011
Change  on line 2 to. This adds the expiry, sorts them to most important first, and also removes the page from the view of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.

LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

✅ Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Full protection
Edit warring over the content of a maintenance tag is, well, lame. Especially since the tag is being completely misused anyway--Cleanup refers to the need to things like "wikification, spelling, grammar, typographical errors, tone, and sourcing". I've removed all of the commentary from the template, as you can't use article space to push your arguments about the section--that belongs here. You've got 3 days to try to come to a consensus; if you come to a consensus sooner, ask me and I'll lift the template. If edit-warring resumes after the protection expires, I may reprotect, or I may consider blocks for edit warring. As in all cases of disputes, please use dispute resolution if you can't solve it amongst yourselves. Since I see that the concerns seem to revolve around the sourcing and a claim of synthesis, WP:RSN and/or WP:NORN may be of help. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested two weeks of FP. I'm concerned that 3 days won't be enough, especially with one of the three being a Sunday. SMP0328. (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:SMP0328. I will be extremely busy in the coming week and feel that two weeks of time for thorough discussion will be the best option. Also, User:Qwyrxian, thanks for removing the commentary from the template - I shared the same concerns as yourself. Thanks for your understanding and help. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should take no more than 5 minutes to determine that the sources are talking about the majority opinion of the Supreme Court and not simply the political positions of "liberals and secularists". An editor who reverted to include this section has already accepted the sources to actually be discussing SCOTUS decisions. Even Anupam has accepted that "meaning" is likely not the best description for what is presently in the section. A section on "meaning" which hides what has been determined by SCOTUS to be its meaning is a sham.--JimWae (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarify the material, yes. Rename the subsection, fine. What I oppose is simply removing that subsection. SMP0328. (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My rationale for kicking it down to 3 days is that putting it on full protection, even for this short of a time, is essentially a notice to participants that edit warring is unacceptable. I'm pretty sure I know who is actually edit warring against consensus here, but the short protection will help clarify if the editor(s) intend to continue that behavior or instead just talk it through on the talk page. In general, blocking edit warriors is better than full protection; full protection is best only if the edit warring involves an inordinate number of people, especially if they're taking more than 2 distinct positions. Again, I'll be happy to re-evaluate once the protection expires, and either block for bad behavior or simply extend the protection at that point. See, the thing is, whether the article is protected or not, you (all) shouldn't be just reverting one another back and forth, but, rather, be discussing the issue on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:JimWae, as I stated in my response above, you state that the "sources are talking about the majority opinion of the Supreme Court and not simply the political positions of "liberals and secularists" - however, this violates WP:SYNTH as the sources contrast liberal viewpoints and conservative viewpoints on the establishment clause. Moreover, according to WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." As such, I recommend keeping the content the same in that section. Throughout American history, some Justices in the Supreme Court espoused one of the two viewpoints and that section delineates them. As an effort to compromise, I do not object to retitling the section and it seems as if User:SMP0328. shares this opinion. How about renaming the section, "Political viewpoints"? I hope this helps. User:Qwyrxian, I would kindly request that you evaluate this response. With regards, AnupamTalk 13:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Other editors think this is hopelessly vague, and defensible only by assuming that every source means the same people by "liberal" and "conservative". Who is meant, and are they fringe views? Note that wall of separation is not; its status as law, rather than rhetoric, rests in a decision (not a concurrent opinion or a dissent) of the Supreme Court; the footnote does not support the text, therefore; the description as held by liberals and secularists (Mr. Justice Black was a Baptist).  The view that there is an extreme polarization is itself a point of view; unsubstantiated by the sources.


 * As an interim solution, one possibility is to strip out the text, and replace it by the footnotes. During the protection, I request that POV-section and accuracy-section be added. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I request that User:Pmanderson's request be declined. Only him and User:JimWae (who he/she refers to as "other editors" - amounting to two persons) removed the referenced information in the article. Their attempt to do so was reversed by three different editors (User:SMP0328., User:Anupam, User:Lionelt) multiple times. User:Pmanderson asserts that these are fringe views without providing any reference for his/her claim. He/she ignores the scholarly references provided above in favour of his/her own interpretation. It is meet and right to mention the two most common political viewpoints held in the United States on the issue of the establishment clause. As User:SMP0328. stated, the main issue here is renaming the section, not altering or removing it. I suggested renaming it "Political viewpoints". How does that sound? I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: What part of "discuss this and reach consensus" did you not understand? Anomie⚔ 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tags would indicate that there is an active dispute. What part of "there is no present consensus" is not clear? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly clear that there is no present consensus. Which is why I denied your requested edit. Wait until there is a present consensus. Anomie⚔ 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit I requested was a pair of tags. When there is consensus, they will be useless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a tag present in the article. There is no need to add another one. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This section begins with Qwyrxian's observation that this tag does not describe the dispute. The section is, at least, more or less grammatical; it is (except for one pathetic transcription) correctly spelt; but the dispute is that it is inaccurate and tendentious. Is there some reason that Anupiam prefers not to describe this dispute as being what it is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This extract suggests that the passage in question is a copyright violation, with the new wording introduced to reverse the author's intent. It should be removed on both grounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't been editing the article, but it isn't correct to say that Pmanderson and JimWae are the only ones who have doubts about the section. One of my concerns is recentism: the section seems based on a perceived liberal-conservative divide particular to the last ten to thirty years. It doesn't take a long-term historical view of the "meaning" of the Establishment Clause, and confuses politicization with political theory. The section seems different in kind from the rest of the article, which is case-based. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * after ec: Indeed, inserting "although the Court has also criticized it" is an adulteration of unattributed copyrighted material. There are a plenitude of sources that can be found (including the ones already provided) to show that the supposedly "liberal" view is (and has been) the majority opinion of SCOTUS -- and is their "verdict" and the law of the land, not just "liberal and secularist" political opinions. The whole section is a sham. I do not oppose a treatment of "meaning" -- but there is already a treatment in the parent section above it, and HIDING the determinations of SCOTUS reeks of ...[provide your own ending].--JimWae (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference titled Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum states:
 * The above reference is corroborated by several others, which are listed above. I do not mind stating that the majority of Supreme Court Justices have endorsed the liberal viewpoint, as stated in the source. However, if that statement is added, we must also mention that there has been dissent on the issue, as indicated in the same source. The motion to erase this section is inappropriate, and attempts to hide the fact that there are different interpretations on the subject, both currently and historically. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * SCOTUS determines the meaning, as far as the law is concerned. It does not just state its agreement with one political stance or another. The section hides the determinations of SCOTUS as simply a "liberal and secularist" political opinion to be agreed with or not. That is disingenuous.--JimWae (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I cannot help that you respectfully disagree with what is being said in the reliable source above. I think the answer here is to change the heading of the section. How about "Political viewpoints"? With regards, AnupamTalk 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A section that largely contains cites about the majority opinion (which determines their rulings AND the law of the land) of SCOTUS is not properly titled as "Political viewpoints"--JimWae (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If SCOTUS is being quoted, it needs to be clear that THEY determine the meaning of the entire Constitution and that they have consistently determined that government must not give preference to religion over non-religion (notwithstanding so-called non-theistic ceremonialism)--JimWae (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
When I looked over this article, I found the following section:
 * ''The Establishment Clause's meaning has been a point of contention among different groups and its meaning has been interpreted differently at different times in American history. One view is that the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state, although this term did not appear in the First Amendment but in a personal letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to church leaders in Connecticut. Another view is that the Establishment Clause solely prevents the government from establishing a state church, not from publicly acknowledging God.

Observe that it is sourced to blogs like belief.net and Student News Daily. In addition to terminal vagueness (who are these views?) and significant factual error, the Manichaean view that there are two monolithic contending armies here is a POV, and a tendentious one. But then a text which specified who held these views might have to admit that the "wall of separation" is from a Supreme Court opinion, written for a moderately conservative court by a Baptist.

It has since mutated several times; I particularly like this one, with its appeal to a (misinterpreted) opinion poll:


 * ''The Establishment Clause's meaning has been a point of contention among different groups and its meaning has been interpreted differently at different times in American history.[2]


 * ''Liberals believe the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state,[3][4] although this term did not appear in the First Amendment but in a personal letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to church leaders in Connecticut.[2] According to this viewpoint, "government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."[4]


 * ''Conservatives believe the Establishment Clause solely prevents the establishing of a state church, not from publicly acknowledging God and "developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals."[5][6][7][6] According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans identify with the latter view, with 67% of Americans even deeming the United States a "Christian nation".[8][9]

It has continued to evolve; it now has perfectly respectable footnotes, with only two problems: they are copyright violations, and they do not support the text. (One of them is cribbed from a quite good source; if we wrote a text that it supported, that would be a reasonable contribution.) But the text remains what it was: the opinions of unreliable blogs.

Anupam and SMP0328. are the revert-warriors who have brought us to this. They defend their ownership of the article by claiming that it would require consensus to remove this indiscriminate collection of opinions. Not so; the burden rests on those who would add text. If this RfC is foiled by their opposition, dispute resolution will continue.


 * I take offense at being called a "revert warrior". Try to assume good faith. SMP0328. (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then don't revert. And if you wish to be treated as exhibiting good faith, don't invent policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Who gave you the authority to prohibit me from reverting? I didn't invent the consensus policy. SMP0328. (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The authority to prevent you from reverting rests in WP:Edit warring, not in me. But I have not (yet) taken steps to disarm your reversions; I merely commend the sure way not to be called a revert-warrior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:PMAnderson, you were reverted by User:SMP0328., User:Lionelt, and myself - clearly your unilateral reverts were contested by the Wikipedia Community. You should have gained consensus for the referenced and well sourced paragraph's removal rather edit warring over it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The three of you are already outnumbered, even by the commenters here: JimWae, Cynwolfe, Ajbpearce, and myself. Have I forgotten somebody? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Ajbpearce does not support your position, as demonstrated below, but rather criticizes the language you've used to word the RfC and even states that "just deleting or removing content, even though it may be poorly sourced and offer an inadequate summary is not that helpful." Thanks, AnupamTalk 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really now? Let me quote the gentleman:
 * "Overall, these sources are arguably even worse than the originally used ones, because whereas they were obviously poor quality, these are being presented as improvements, when they do not even attempt to discuss the issue that the section is discussing, which is the overall interpretation (or meaning) of the Establishment Clause. Overall the changes seem like choosing to support the article as written and then changing the sources to support that, rather than the correct approach - which is to find the best sources and then write the article based on the sources. I cannot believe that there is a single serious academic source that would present the "meaning" (as I have said I prefer interpretation) of this clause as: "There are a variety of views, many liberals believe X, many conservatives believe Y" yet this is how the article currently presents it"
 * In short, he prefers a good paragraph (so would I, if I thought there were a chance of getting one on this general topic); but this section is badly sourced, and deals with the subject from a view which no serious source would ever use. If this be support, make the most of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Constructive suggestions

 * ''This may be the most valuable aspect of the RfC. Please feel free to suggest any reasonable course below:


 * As an uninvolved editor - I have a few comments, which I hope are helpful to you. First, I have to say the tenor of the above discussions and even of this RFC is disappointing, editors should be working together in good faith to improve our coverage of an important issue, and using language like "It's perfect, and may not be touched without consensus." and calling editors "revert-warriors" is not constructive. Equally, though, some editors appear to have expended far more effort disputing changes than improving the article, and much of the discussion from the outside looks like it is focused on arguing: statements like "you have been reverted by X separate editors" and excessive throwing around of wiki shortcodes and policies create a hostile environment. This may well not be intentional, but I would say all editors should pause, remember that it is not about winning an argument but about writing a better article.
 * Second, calling this section "meaning" does seem a poor choice - from the outside a much better name for what this section is trying to discus is the interpretation of the establishment clause - the linked separate, short (though seemingly much better sourced at a glance) article discusses this in some particular contexts, and this main article should summarise that work and provide a general summary of the more general scholarship on the topic.
 * Third, I think all the editors that have commented so far must agree that the largest problem with this section of the article is its sourcing, and I don't believe that it can be at all controversial that discussion on the meaning of the first amendment to a 30 page booklet, the Student News Daily, selected primary sources (without secondary source discussion) and a website called Beliefnet is totally inadequate. I am absolutely sure that there must be abundant and well recognised scholarly literature available on this subject (A quick google search confirms this!) which should be the starting point for any editors wishing to write about this topic.
 * Finally, just deleting or removing content, even though it may be poorly sourced and offer an inadequate summary is not that helpful, much better would be for editors wanting to improve this section to study the scholarly literature and write a new more comprehensive paragraph (and hopefully contribute to the more detailed Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment article in the process).
 * EDIT: when I was going to post this, I got an edit conflict with Anupam's statement above - which caused me to go look again at the current sourcing in the article, my obvious criticisms of the use of the smith booklet and direct primary sources remain. However, the sources that have been added are no better, the Lieberman book is not a proper, detailed discussion of the topic, its 11 years old and certainly does not particularly support the view that "The Establishment Clause's meaning has been a point of contention among different groups and its meaning has been interpreted differently at different times in American history". The remaining three sources are not broad scholarly discussions of the establishment clause, but political books written from a political perspective making particular political arguments, they don't claim or attempt to be balanced or informative discussions of the interpretation of the establishment clause. Overall, these sources are arguably even worse than the originally used ones, because whereas they were obviously poor quality, these are being presented as improvements, when they do not even attempt to discuss the issue that the section is discussing, which is the overall interpretation (or meaning) of the Establishment Clause. Overall the changes seem like choosing to support the article as written and then changing the sources to support that, rather than the correct approach - which is to find the best sources and then write the article based on the sources. I cannot believe that there is a single serious academic source that would present the "meaning" (as I have said I prefer interpretation) of this clause as: "There are a variety of views,  many liberals believe X, many conservatives believe Y" yet this is how the article currently presents it. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Interpretation" would be better; Everson would have to be moved to the previous section, but it should be anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What its present meaning acc to SCOTUS is needs to receive prominence - either before or at the top of any such Interpretations section. What is being designated the "liberal and secularist" interpretation IS the SCOTUS interpretation, because it has been the majority opinion of the justices. There are people who want a stronger wall and those who want to tear pieces of the wall out. The main "conservative" position is a desire to have some SCOTUS decisions reversed - either by amendment or future SCOTUS decisions.--JimWae (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not mind if we rename the current section titled 'Meaning' to 'Interpretations.' I would suggest that we preclude SCOTUS from the 'Interpretations' section and discuss SCOTUS under the main heading. The 'Interpretations' or 'Politics' section should simply discuss liberal and conservative perspectives. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Then the sources for such a section should not consist primarily of references to SCOTUS, except insofar as conservatives want to overturn past decisions. Nor should they be grade school textbooks. And it should be clear that what is designated as the "liberal and secularist" view in the current text IS the present law of the land.--JimWae (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, the references delineate conservative and liberal perspectives on the subject. As of now, the section does not discuss SCOTUS. SCOTUS decisions should be discussed under the main heading, along with the lemon test, etc. as User:SMP0328. suggested. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, footnotes 4 and 5, which discuss only Supreme Court Justices, offer no support to the text whatever; it has, as said, no support but the blogs which we began with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that footnote 5 was intended to be used as a reference, but was intended to supply additional information. That being said, I do not object to its removal. Footnote 5 does indeed support the statement preceding it: 'As we have noted, for the past 50 years-ever since Everson v. Board of education (1947)-the majority of Supreme Court Justices have interpreted the Establishment Clause to require a "wall of separation between church and state." Government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions. This has been, and is, the liberal or 'separationist' reading of the Establishment Clause.' I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)\
 * Thank you. That is an admission that that the phrasing in the text, which refers to "many conservatives," is unsourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not. Once again, I encourage you to read the sources listed above, which all directly refer to "conservatives" and the viewpoint they espouse with regards to the establishment clause. Thanks, AnupamTalk 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Footnotes 4, 5, 6, and 7 all discuss SCOTUS decisions and SCOTUS justices, without remarking on it in the text for which they are supposed to be a source. I suspect footnote 7 contains selective quoting, because the way it is presented makes it appear as if "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another" is somehow still support for aiding all religions. A section on Interpretations should not be presenting the majority SCOTUS opinions -- and thus rulings-- as mere "interpretations". Doing so would show neither due respect nor due weight for the constitutional institution of SCOTUS. --JimWae (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A grade-school pamphlet is then brought in (given equal weight as SCOTUS - or more, since it is referenced twice) to make a point that nobody disagrees with anyway. --JimWae (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems the basis for a reasonable paragraph. Write about the Supreme Court, including both the decisions and the existence of dissenting opinions from certain Justices, and onit the grade-school writings and the blog arguments, and we will have a reasonable and decently-sourced paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that would be far more informative to the reader than any discussion restricted to polarized political views.--JimWae (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this approach.... with the caveat that any dissenting opinions included should notable I.e. cited by the Court or in cases of note by lower courts. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Complaints
No, I'm not. The present text of the section is substantially the same as it was then; this is still the content of the blogs. The footnotes now claim better sources which do not support it; at least the old version had the advantage of honesty and transparency:
 * You are misrepresenting the RfC because you are placing an old revision of the paragraph above as the one that is in question. No, the current paragraph has excised the journalistic sources for scholarly ones, which now properly qualify the statements in the article. If you do not supplant your paragraph above with the current content, I may need to start a new RfC for the issue. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ''The Establishment Clause's meaning has been a point of contention among different groups and its meaning has been interpreted differently at different times in American history.[2][3]


 * ''For many liberals and secularists, the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state,

[4][5] although this term did not appear in the First Amendment but in a personal letter sent by Thomas Jefferson to church leaders in Connecticut.[2] According to this viewpoint, "government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."[5][6]


 * ''For many conservatives, the Establishment Clause solely prevents the establishing of a state church, not from publicly acknowledging God and "developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals."

The quotation in the first paragraph is, again, from the Supreme Court; it was written by Mr. Justice Black, a Baptist; the dissent was by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Roosevelt's former Attorney General; ascribing it to "liberals and secularists" is unsourced, and less than reasonable.

I abstain, at this level of dispute resolution, from making disciplinary suggestions, as not constructive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the Meaning subsection, we could remove references to "liberals" and "conservatives". That way we would not have to be concerned with who follows which view. As for the Supreme Court, many decisions since the '70s have not followed the "wall of separation" interpretation; instead, those decisions have followed various tests (Lemon, endorsement, or coercion. Any reference to the Supreme Court should include reference to these tests.
 * I am thinking particularly of this edit, with its edit summary making the nonsensical claim that anything which has been inserted can only be removed by consensus; no-one who claims that is exercising good faith. (Other edits have been more constructive.)


 * Taking out "liberal" and "conservative" would indeed change this passage, from nonsense to vacuousness: Somebody somewhere has taken Position A and somebody else has taken Position B. Insofar as this is a change from a war between unidentifed "liberals" and "conservatives", it may be an improvement; at least the passage would be more candid in saying nothing in particular. But it should still go.


 * As for the final suggestion here: nobody would complain if Lemon were moved up into text from the See also; but the Lemon test tests whether an action, on the public side of the wall, substantially brings religion over; it's an implementation of Everson, not a reversal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a constructive suggestion? Simply removing the Meaning material and putting nothing in its place is not constructive. SMP0328. (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking out the present text and writing something like the present text of footnote 4 in its place would be acceptable; but I prefer to remove it entirely; as we see, it's a magnet for partisan cruft. As footnote 4 stands, it's a copyright violation, except where it has been interpolated to disagree with its source (which says that the Court has supported Everson "many times", and does not invent conflicts). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation? I don't think so. The original quote is maintained within the reference in order to ensure verifiability of the apparently contentious information. Also, removing the paragraph is not an option. The paragraph accurately reflects conservative and liberal perspectives on the issue. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Footnote 4 is unattributed and appears as a "commentary". However, there's strong evidence that it is an adulteration of copyrighted material . --JimWae (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)i
 * My apologies, I thought you were referring to the other references, which do attribute their quotes properly. Cheers, AnupamTalk 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Footnote 4 is a distorted version of an extract from a book called Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints, ed. by Charles P. Cozic. It is symptomatic of the flaws of this section that it should be sourced from the academic equivalent of Frontline, which was then changed to what the source will not support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It may also be characteristic of this discussion that footnote 5 is misspelled, although it quotes a copy-edited text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
At this point, Anupam has written in support of the following positions:
 * 1) The text is about the Supreme Court, as the quoted references are. [If so, the text should say so.]
 * 2) The text is about "conservatives" and "liberals" in general.
 * 3) The footnotes are not references to the text, but further reading.
 * 4) The footnotes support the text.

If he picks one or two of these diverse propositions, discussion can continue; if not, this will require Mediation. I will add a notice here when I request it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation quality
Fellow editors: legal topics need explicit, detailed, quality citations even more than most articles. Those who persist in slapdash citation-making *will* transmute this article from B class to Null class in short order. Put away your wrecking balls please -- if it takes more time to find a proper cite, then take the time. The quality of the cite matters. Specific statutes, case law, legal journals, etc., but no jiffy notes, cliff notes, or other such sources. Sctechlaw (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I just read the discussion above (didn't before my comment immediately above). The article is not an exploration of what people think, it's an article about a series of events that have transpired and decisions that have been made. In law, what people think doesn't much matter, especially in the popular press. What matters is what the law is and how the courts are interpreting the law. I suggest that if there are editors who are chafing at the bit to write an article about what people think of the law, then by all means they should do so, but there is no place in this article for such talkshow wrangling. Sctechlaw (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed POV sentence
From the new material added to the Establishment Clause section, I have removed the following:"The Court has affirmed it often, with majority, but not unanimous, support; dissenting opinions have tended to give less support to the rights of religious minorities, and regarded establishment as a less serious concern.[footnote]" This sentence, and its source, give the impression that "conservative justices" care less about certain people's rights than do "liberal" justices. Wikipedia should not be making accusations against people. Maybe the "conservative justices" believe in the rights of "religious minorities" just as strongly as "liberal" justices, while interpreting the Establishment Clause differently from said liberals. To suggest otherwise, is POV (even if the unintentionally done).

Contents of Footnote: SMP0328. (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments User:SMP0328. In my opinion, not just that section, but removing the whole original paragraph, along with the respective references, without offering a neutral perspective of a dissenting view was also inappropriate. The former section complied with WP:NPOV, which states: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This was not taken into consideration; moreover, there is no mention of the lemon test, ceremonial deism, etc. I do not have much time at the moment. I will return to help edit this section later. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me see:
 * The source, which these two editors have been praising, says:
 * That is, conservative justices have been less concerned about the dangers of establishment and less concerned to protect free exercise rights, particularly of religious minorities. It also, prudently, summarizes the discussions within the Court by tends/
 * The text complained of said
 * dissenting opinions have tended to give less support to the rights of religious minorities, and regarded establishment as a less serious concern.
 * If the blankers can come up with a more accurate rendition of the content of the sentence quoted, I will be glad to include it - short of copyright violation. I don't see one; I shall therefore be restoring this shortly as a direct quotation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Other characterizations of the dissents are welcome; do look up reliable sources, and see what they say. Or if my honourable colleagues are now willing to be silent on the whole subject, we can do that too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I again removed that material for being POV. Also, there should be references to the other tests the Supreme Court uses. The Court does not make Establishment Clause decisions based on the "wall" analogy. Finally, stop insulting Anupam and me. You are obligated to assume we are editing in good faith, just as we are to assume so with your edits. SMP0328. (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add sourced references to the tests, which are used to determine when the wall has been breached; As for the tests, Lemon test has a very useful source. In the meantime, this is your second revert; you are now claiming that a direct quote from the source you brought to the article is POV, without ever mentioning what point of view you claim is expressed.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When did I bring that source to the article? Why is it relevant to mention Justice Black's religion? The source that was added by somebody (not me) claims that the "conservative justices" care less about religious rights. That is POV, yet it is placed in the article as if it was a fact. SMP0328. (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re mention of Justice Black's religion, my recent edit here inadvertently removed that. I've left it out because it seems to me that presence of that mention would require explicit clarification in order to establish due weight. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as this article is not attributing Black's writing to unnamed "secularists," omitting Baptist is not unreasonable. It does seem to me relevant, both in dispelling wide-spread illiteracy, and suggesting a possible sympathy with Jefferson's correspondents; but it may not be significant.


 * As for the quotation from Nord: this is the conclusion of a reliable source, published by a University Press of some minor distinction; it is a fact that he wrote it. If other reliable sources can be brought to the table which show that it is not representative of scholarly opinion, then we can reword or omit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Without getting into a discussion re Nord's reliability and NPOV concerns about bringing in Nord's book without mentioning sources of similar reliability and prominence stating differing viewpoints, a footnote supporting a quote from Everson is an awkward place from which to mention a quote in the body prose which follows the quote being supported by the footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is; I have replaced it with a link to LII's text of the decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is JiffyNotes a reliable source? The claim sourced is not surprising, but can we do better? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I used JiffyNotes as a place holder. I have now added a real source. Note that this source can be used for many purposes regarding this article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added a section on Accommodationists in order to reflect the information contained within the Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court, which in turn satisfies WP:NPOV. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Occupy Movement
Although I take a neutral position (for now) on the Occupy protests which are presently spreading to various cities around the United States, I am concerned about potential First Amendment rights violations by the municipal governments and police agencies involved. Apparently, some of the municipal governments are taking the position that public safety and hygiene takes precedence over the First Amendment rights of the protesters; and, they are using that position as legal grounds for breaking up the Occupy Movement's camps. This will surely lead to great deal of controversy and will probably eventually end up as a new legal precedence for the Supreme Court to resolve. My familiarity with Constitutional Law is not very high, but I would like to see some commentary by people knowledgable in that area in this article. I am old enough to remember similar issues occurring during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. Aletheia (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguably would be WP:Recentism and WP:ADVOCACY. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cybercobra, adding undue weight as grounds for exclusion. A discussion of OWS in light of the First Amendment may have a place on Wikipedia, probably in the OWS article itself, but is surely a tangent in this article. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also agree the proper place is on the OWS article talk page or related pages, but not here. @Aletheia: there are always tensions between 1stAm and protests, so your sense is correct that there are issues. Try looking up the concepts of "fighting words", "right to assembly" and "clear and present danger", and also see what's in WP on the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the Kent State shootings, those should get you started. Good luck. Sctechlaw (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So far all the OWS cases are being decided by state courts, on the First Amendment and the parallel state provisions.


 * Therefore we have a blank spot; I don't see anything on state jurisprudence at all, although there must be a great deal of it since 1868. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional issues material in Smith Act trials: link to here?
The article Foley Square trial covers a handful of important Cold War era trials in the US (nb: the article is currently in the process of being renamed to Smith Act trials of communist party leaders). A question has arisen as to how that article should cover the constitutional issues raised in the trials. The same constitutional material is already covered in this article's "Speech critical of govmt" section. In the Foley Square trial article the constitutional material is covered in its legal appeals section. That section already has a main template link to this article, based on the assumption that this article is the primary article for legal/constitutional issues; whereas the Foley Square trial article covers the political/cultural/historical aspects of the lower court trials. The questions are: should the "Legal appeals section" in that article be expanded? Or if it is sufficient to just link to this article? Any feedback would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think wikilinks to this article would be a problem. Any proposed changes to Foley Square trial should be discussed at that article's talk page, not here. SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. There is already a discussion at that article's Talk page. The point of this posting was to solicit input from additional editors who have subject matter expertise. The specific questions are: Does the legal appeals section of that article have sufficient detail about the supreme court cases & constitutional issues? A related question (not posed before) is: Should any of that material from that article be added into this article? --Noleander (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An RfC has been created to focus the discussion. Any input would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Memorial against Religious Assessments
In the paragraph "Separationists" there's an error concerning a work by James Madison. In the Article, the title of Madison's work is "Memorial against Religious Assessments" while the real correct title for that work is "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments" as shown in this commentary by John Ragosta from University of Virginia: http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/james-madisons-memorial-and-remonstrance-against-religious-assessments. Please change the title with the correct one. Thanx. Paroladelsignore (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for pointing out the error and welcome to Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Campaign finance reform and Montana's Corrupt Practices Act
The United States Supreme Court handed down a per curiam ruling which effectually expanded Citizens United to overturn a 1912 citizen initiated independent expenditure restriction in the state of Montana. The court reasoned in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al. v. Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al. "[t]he question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does."

The SCOTUS ruling itself can be found at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf  (Feel free to remove this if it's a non-issue in the article.  It doesn't really matter to me, just thought it might be of importance.) 69.107.86.64 (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

government speech section
The concept of government speech had been cited in court cases, including johanns (2005). Seems notable enough to warrant its own discussion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerontv (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Plain mistake
"The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

Naturally this is wrong. The amendment prohibits **Congress** from making any such law, it does not prohibit the making of such a law altogether.129.133.127.244 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the article. Various Supreme Court decisions have ruled that the First Amendment applies to the States (including the local governments therein). Also read Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. SMP0328. (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs section on "government speech"
The concept of government speech had been cited in court cases, including johanns (2005). Seems notable enough to warrant its own discussion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerontv (talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just doing a drive-by mention the WP Government speech article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Text of First Amendment
Synopsis:

- googled "text of first amendment" - saw Wikipedia link and clicked (usually prefer Wikipedia) - can't find the first amendment text in the article

Shouldn't it be in italics right at the top, or at least shouldn't there be a "full text" option in the clickable index? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.216.102 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The amendment's text is here. I'm not sure what you're asking. Why should the amendment's text be italics? SMP0328. (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Free speech zone section
The caption under the pic for the free speech zone implies a biased political view. It should be edited to remove the quotes from "free speech zone" or the picture deleted altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.171.185 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That picture is an example of a free speech zone. It does not suggest that the Democratic Party is the only political party that uses this device. Removal of the picture is not warranted. SMP0328. (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about change the caption to "A free speech zone." Even after reading your response, it still seems politically bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.171.185 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"International significance"
Can any secondary sources be found for this section? Right now it appears that the text of the amendment is simply being compared to other texts, which verges into original research. It would be helpful if we could derive this instead from historical or legal sources that could explain the connections. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section for now, but if I can find sources on this, I'll try to rebuild it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also removed the sentence " A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century". It lacks a source, and carries a bit of opinion ("effectively"). I'll see if I can verify this elsewhere, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be good to start with Separation of church and state in the United States; although, that is poorly sourced as well. Ryan Vesey 01:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! According to the table there, the only American state with an established church remaining into the 19th century was Connecticut, but there may be some that aren't listed. I'll try to double-check all this through Google Books or some such later and re-add a more nuanced version. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Found confirmation of MA's state religion in Encyc Brit while doing other research today; re-added a modified form. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Free speech zones
I'm not sure the phenomenon of "free speech zones" is worth its own subsection of this article. There's never been a Supreme Court decision on this, only a fed. district court decision that I can find. Several first amendment books that I have on my table at the moment, even those focused mostly on political speech, don't mention the issue. Brett Bursey's appears to be the most notable case, but his name appears very little in Highbeam's news/research database, and U.S. v. Bursey doesn't appear at all. The section relies only on primary sources in its current form.

I'm boldly cutting this paragraph for now, but would have no objection to being reverted if others feel it's an important area of First Amendment law. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They're certainly significant, it can be debated whether or not they're significant in relation to the First Amendment. They should be mentioned in the article, even if they don't get their own section.  For now, I'll throw up some sources. Ryan Vesey 03:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Chronicle of Higher Education "'Free-Speech Zones' on Campuses"
 * The Chronicle of Higher Education "Promoting Order or Squelching Campus Dissent?"
 * Columbia Law Review "Rethinking Free Speech and Civil Liability", in this Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy mentions that they might not be constitutionally permissible (I may be misreading and taking it out of context since I'm only skimming)
 * There are a number of other sources from this JSTOR search that might be useful. Ryan Vesey 03:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure--I didn't mean to debate the notability of the topic in itself, just in this specific context. My first impression, though, is that while articles on free speech zones sometimes mention the First Amendment, sources focusing on the First Amendment never appear to mention free speech zones. US v. Bursey seems like a fairly trivial case so far in its impact, and I'm hesitant to open the door to include every federal district court ruling mentioning the first amendment.
 * Anyway, I've moved it to a "see also" for now; does that sound like a reasonable approach? Alternatively, we could find another section where we could add a sentence on this ruling. We give only one or two sentences to much more famous precedents throughout the article, though, so I'm hesitant to give it much more than that. For example, the federal district court case United States v. One Book Called Ulysses&mdash;which is the primary subject of a full-length scholarly book and a number of academic papers, has been cited as a precedent for 80 years, and is mentioned in many works on the First Amendment&mdash;only gets one sentence. It's not that free speech zones aren't notable, just that this is a huge topic.
 * Lemme know your thoughts, though. I'm far from done on my research on this and I may just be overlooking important sources. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Going for Good Article status
I'm going to be working in the coming month to try to bring this to Good Article status. A superficial read of the article suggests that it's probably pretty close. I think my initial goals will be to expand the lead to better summarize the article and to add a bit of secondary source commentary/analysis to some sections rather than relying wholly on the primary sources of decisions. I'd also like to add perhaps another paragraph to the "background section" discussing why this specific amendment came to be.

I'd be glad for any input/collaboration others want to offer! Let me know if you have any other suggestions I should put on my "to do" list. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck, this sounds like a great project on a core article! Previously I was going through the article Freedom of speech and trying to improve referencing on that. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

To do
Here's the list I want to work on, for my own reference as well as anybody else who's interested:
 * Add more background ✅
 * Add more contextual information to each section, rather than relying on primary sources alone ✅
 * Expand lead ✅
 * Consider adding/substracting images, particularly of the authors of relevant decisions ✅
 * Proofread top-to-bottom -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Expand freedom of the press section to include issues like prior restraint. ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm almost done with my planned revision at this point. In the next few days, I'll do a thorough proofreading; I also hope to check one or two additional reference books on First Amendment law to see if we're leaving out any especially notable cases or topics. After that I'll solicit opinions from WikiProjects Freedom of Speech, Human Rights, and Law. If no major objections are raised there, I'll then put it up for Good Article status. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Shortening "private action" section
I've trimmed several minor cases with lengthy discussion from the "private action" section: Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad Co, Korb v. Raytheon, Drake v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Novosel v. Nationwide. These cases don't appear in the reference works I've been using, don't have any supporting secondary sources, don't have a significant presence in Highbeam research database, and don't have independent Wikipedia articles, all of which suggest to me that they're of minor import. As in the case of free speech zones, I'm sure that secondary sources for these can be found somewhere; but with a topic as broad as First Amendment law, I think it's better to be guided by what major sources indicate to be important, rather than seeking out a narrow subtopic of interest. I think this length would be better used giving longer explanations for truly landmark cases like New York v. Sullivan or Miller v. California; the article simply can't list every district court-level First Amendment decision.

If anyone objects, though, the diff is here; feel free to revert and we can discuss further. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential sources and/or Further reading
Here are some potential good sources to help improve/expand the article, or perhaps to just add to the Further reading sect :

Of all of the above, the best one is by far Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment, by two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient, author Anthony Lewis.

Hope the above is helpful,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Justice Black quote at citation 15
This section is incorrect: "Justice Hugo Black adopted Jefferson's words in the voice of the Court, and concluded that "government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions."

The citation (citation 15) includes a quote from the Everson v. Board of Education decision. However, the quote in the main body that is seemingly attributed to Justice Black from that decision is neither a quote from him nor part of that opinion. The quote apparently comes from a Civics and Economics book or publication found here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/TRSch.5.pdf.

15:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite right. I've removed the incorrectly attributed quotation for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page discussion - Freedom for the Thought That We Hate
I've nominated Freedom for the Thought That We Hate for Main Page discussion.

The date is relevant to freedom of speech, as September 25 was the date the 1st United States Congress passed the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.

Please feel free to comment at Today%27s_featured_article/requests.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Theory and what is publish broadcast in reality.
By time are different standard what will be published in press and Tv. If somebody took some pictures in 80 was not broadcasted. For todays standard 80 standard is a joke. In 80 was not possible what was possible in 90 about scandal with president Clinton and Lewinsky. Different times different possibility, not only about first....Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.9.6 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson did not call for a separation of church and state.
In his letter Jefferson did not call for a separation of church and state. His letter exalted the importance of the words "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,". He used the next sentance as a metaphor for what this meant "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Vol. 14 No. 1 (January 2004)

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE, by Daniel L. Dreisbach. New York: New York University Press, 2002. 304 pp. Paper $19. ISBN 0-8147-1936-8.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.94.237 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Clause-specific Wikipedia articles
Hello, I noticed that there's an article about the Establishment Clause, and an article about the Free Exercise Clause, but no articles specifically about the Speech and Press Clauses. So, I'm thinking abut starting one (see User:Anythingyouwant/Speech and Press Clauses). It would probably take me a while to get to something that can be moved out of my user space, but I just thought I'd mention it here in case anyone would like to comment about it before I get too deeply into it. There is currently an article about Freedom of speech in the United States, and also an article about Freedom of the press in the United States, and my new article about the Speech and Press Clauses would have sections summarizing those other articles, which seem to focus mostly on modern Supreme Court doctrine. I'd like the new article to go into some detail about the drafting, adoption, and early history of those clauses, while also discussing particular textual issues that have been addressed by courts and commentators (e.g. what the Press Clause accomplishes that isn't already accomplished by the Speech Clause, whether the word "abridge" converts the clause into a one-way ratchet, and whether the definite article in the phrase "the freedom" signifies something special).Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014
The quote from Thomas Jefferson should be historically accurate. The existing Wikipedia text shows, "between man and his god". The word "god" is inaccurately spelled. The word Thomas Jefferson wrote in his letter was the word "God".

Jsb1963 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Citing the First Amendment
The Wikipedia article should start with a plain citation of the first amendment before launching into a breakdown of its components or any explanation of the amendment.

The article should start by saying:

'''The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States is,

"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." ''' Citation: The Constitution of The United States

Not doing so fails to allow the reader to interpret and judge the discussion in full knowledge of the amendment itself. I can see no good reason for creating such a situation, and can easily see how it opens the door to those who wish to persuade the reader to adopt a particular interpretation, lacking reference to the amendment itself.

Why open that door. Start by stating the amendment. That is what the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.72.179.148 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is stated here in the very first section following the lead section. The lead is meant to be an introduction to the article subject.
 * Also, all of the Wikipedia articles about the Constitution's amendments are structured the same. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 76.72.179.148, I know you mean well and I want you to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Every article starts with an Introduction, which is a summary of what is in the article. The text of the amendment is not a summary of the article's contents. Do note that the amendment's text comes immediately after the Introduction. So this article, and all similar articles, does pretty close to what you want. SMP0328. (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see it wikilinked above so I'll mention here that the relevant style guideline is Manual of Style/Lead section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more with the first comment. The text of the amendment should appear first - and not least because the meaning of the first sentence in the section (First Amendment to the United States Constitution) is very unclear, owing to poor grammar.  That sentence needs to be redrafted. P123cat1 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight on Obsidian thingy

 * 1) twice added WP:Undue weight to this article from some lower court ruling at diff1 and diff2 about the Obsidian case.
 * 2) This sorta almost comes across like spamming info on that particular case here onto this article page.
 * 3) Let's try to keep this page to cases on decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.
 * 4) This page already probably has too much content in the article main body text and should be trimmed a lot more.
 * 5) It will help the trimming process to keep to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, was just about to start a similar topic after my own revert today. Cases should be limited to US Supreme Court cases, and then only the most important ones. I think the only reason to accept the addition of a regional circuit case is where it was particularly groundbreaking and influential upon the other circuits; i.e., it created precedent that was adopted by other circuits to the point that it became widespread law (which would inherently avoid the circuit splits that are often the basis for SCOTUS granting cert). TJRC (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with everything stated by, above. Thank you for your actions at the article page, and your comments here on the talk page. Most appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * After trimming down my previous edits I further trimmed them down drastically with this edit and limited it to the Defamation subsection. I hope by doing so the content/edit can be maintained at this site despite limiting factors/reasons stated by TJRC and Cirt. My reason of reading was to emphasize that for the first a court recognized that bloggers are entitled to, to quote the cited First Amendment Center source, "the same First Amendment protection from libel suits as traditional news media." --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I still disagree. There are a couple hundred years of Supreme Court First Amendment cases that cover the entire nation. There are plenty of cases worth setting out, and we can only select a few. We should not be including cases that cover only a fraction of the states in a general article on the First Amendment. If there were an article on First Amendment application to the Internet, where there will be far fewer cases, it might be appropriate there. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If this Court of Appeals decision ends up in the article, then a section should be created containing other important Court of Appeals First Amendment decisions. For an example of this, see the Second Amendment article. Unless such a section is added to the article, Obsidian should not be either. Why should Obsidian be mentioned, but not any other Court of Appeals decisions regarding the First Amendment? SMP0328. (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all: Thanks for all the foregoing comments for which I thankful. Following the reasonable comments made by TJRC ("I think the only reason to accept the addition of a regional circuit case is where it was particularly groundbreaking and influential upon the other circuits; i.e., it created precedent that was adopted by other circuits to the point that it became widespread law") and (" We should not be including cases that cover only a fraction of the states in a general article on the First Amendment.") I submit the following proposal for consideration in the freedom of speech defamation subsection: The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme. But every United States appeals court which adressed this issue concluded      that that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.  I hope that this proposal can in light of TJRC's guiding comments be includued  in the named subsection. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I strongly agree with this action by . This material should not be in this article, because we should limit this page to Supreme Court of the United States cases. If we open the door to this, we have to discuss lots and lots of other appellate cases that never made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, as noted wisely by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After discovering that there is an article for the Obsidian I added an link to this article in the See also section. Thus 1.) any further discussions wether to include the Obsidian case or not is moot in my eyes and 2.) the issue has been resolved from my point of view. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it as redundant to case law from higher courts, at Template:US1stAmendment. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Branzburg v. Hayes
Branzburg v. Hayes] quote is all good and appropriate for this page, but let's please try to rely on secondary sources for new additions of material to this article, thank you.

"This freedom was described in Branzburg v. Hayes as "a fundamental personal right" which is not confined to newspapers and periodicals."

Not sure at the moment what is verifying this info. It was added with zero in-line citations to back it up.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the Branzburg v. Hayes] quote source. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, we should rely on secondary sources, and avoid primary sources, so as to avoid straying into WP:NOR violations. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)