Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 4

Confusing sentence
Please explain what this sentence means:"While the question remains whether bloggers or people posting on social media like Facebook and Twitter are covered by the Free Press Clause, they are covered by the Free Speech Clause." Once its meaning is confirmed, this sentence's wording can be repaired to reflect that meaning. SMP0328. (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure that's the best most optimal WP:RS source to use here for this info. That sentence should be removed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed that sentence from the article. The source that accompanied it has been put in my original post. SMP0328. (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with this action by . Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Because I added the phrase above I will do my very best to explain it. The background of the sentence is the discussion about a federal shield law to protect journalists from prosecution and government abuse. This raises the question who is a journalist and thus entitled to the protections offered by the First Amendment free press clause. My aim with the above sentence was to show 1.) that is an open question whether people who blog, twitter or use other social media are journalists entitled to the First Amendment free press clause protections, 2.) but that these people nonetheless are entitled to the protections of the First Amendments free speech clause. Based on the foregoing explanation this wording should be better and clearer: While the question remains whether bloggers or persons posting on social media like Facebook and Twitter are journalist entitled to the Free Press Clause protections like the prohibition against prior restraints, they are nonetheless persons who are protected by the the Free Speech Clause. I hope this sentence can now be readded. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's try to use better WP:RS secondary sources please, thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone is protected by the Free Press Clause. The proposed revision, like the original wording, says that bloggers and social media posters might not be so protected, but then says they are so protected. Still confusing. SMP0328. (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After further research I admit I made the wrong assumption that the Free Press clause differences between media businesses and nonprofessional speakers. I clarified this issue by this edit. With the edit I also made clear that the confusing sentence cited by SMP0328. applies to the context Media shield laws in the United States and not to the First Amendment context. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Much clearer. I only made a slight edit so that those laws are referred by their commonly used name, which is also the name used by the source ("media shield laws"). SMP0328. (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2014
please change "...prohibits the making of any law..." to "Congress(legislative branch of the federal government)cannot make any law..."
 * Done with this edit. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction22 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Undone with this edit. The applicability of the Bill of Rights is covered in the second paragraph of the Introduction. SMP0328. (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015
The first sentence of the article is inaccurate. The First Amendment does not forbid all entities from making these laws; it specifically forbids Congress. Please change "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law..." to "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making BY CONGRESS of any law...". Thank you.

206.246.22.200 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

❌ Please read the second paragraph of the lead "Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, ...." - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ As it is stated in the second paragraph of the lead, Gitlow v. New York extend the protection to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Winner 42 Talk to me!  17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also see Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. SMP0328. (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Texas v. Johnson minor error
The Supreme Court of the United States did not overturn the decision by court of original jurisdiction, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned an upheld decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. SCOTUS merely affirmed the decision by Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On the Wikipedia page for Texas v. Johnson, it states the above as well. The wording bothered me as I am doing a case brief over this. Thank you. 71.42.146.2 (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This article does not mention the procedural history of Johnson. As for the other article you mentioned, you should post your concerns on its talk page. Thank you for stating your concerns and welcome to Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130513015149/http://socialchangenyu.com/2013/02/01/citizens-united-and-the-paradox-of-corporate-speech/ to http://socialchangenyu.com/2013/02/01/citizens-united-and-the-paradox-of-corporate-speech/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edit
The following passage is under section 5.2.1: "Both of these cases show that the government can overrule The Bill of Rights with certain acts like The Espionage Act of 1917. It all depends on what was done to put the United States in danger."

Not only is this uncited, but it strikes me as spectacularly encyclopedic and poorly written. --2601:18C:8800:4600:E5E0:8102:5416:344A (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Those sentences were POV and synthesis. I have removed those sentences. SMP0328. (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/nation/jb_nation_bofright_1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/208044/First-Amendment/296558/The-establishment-clause
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/11/us/excerpts-from-ruling-on-use-of-education-money.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenity
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-petition
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805073951/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org///speech/adultent/topic.aspx?topic=pornography to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposing change to structure
I'm not a fan of the structure of these articles where there's a large amount of obscure trivia in a multi-page preamble that's been stapled together before it gets to what most people want to see first: the actual text of the amendment. In my opinion this article should begin with "The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: ..." and then from there go on to analysis, background etc. Particularly since the text is in the public domain and is only a single brief sentence. Thoughts? Xj (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2017
Section 5.2.2 - In the case of Cohen v. California, the judge was John Marshall Harlan II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_II) not John Marshall Harlan - his grandfather. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan) 2605:E000:6A06:C300:7519:1A21:7446:8FE8 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Serious error in text
The text that has been altered is ", prohibiting the free exercise of religion,"! The correct text reads ",or prohibiting the free exercise of religion,"! A single word removed makes ALL the difference in the meaning. I'm sure this was a typo, and not a deliberate omission, as that would point to some very ugly activism taking place. Something I'm sure no one wants to see on this site. I will check back in 7 days to ensure the grievous error has been repaired. If not, the next step is to alert the media. This of course is not the preferred outcome. 204.112.246.112 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Text section says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That is what is in the First Amendment. There is no need for your threat. Nobody is trying to be deceptive. Please further explain the "error" you claim is present. SMP0328. (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Change "First amendment" redirect
Typing "First Amendment" into the search bar should redirect to the disambiguation page. Redirecting to the US Constitution seems biased in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WitherOrNot (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Article the Third" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Article the Third. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Restriction on software
Hi all, where should the following case go? Bernstein v. United States

I remember it came about after the FBI wanted a precedent to be set after the San Bernardino shooting in 2016 by starting the process of petitioning the supreme court to force Apple to create a new version of iOS so they could get into the shooter's iPhones. This case was referenced that basically said you can't be compelled to create (or not create) computer code, as code is also defined as speech. Not sure what the best section to add it to. Apeholder (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The cases cited in this article are from the Supreme Court. Bernstein is a Ninth Circuit decision and so has no effect in any part of the United States outside of that circuit. If this issue reaches the Supreme Court, whatever the Supreme Court decides should be added to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Pornography
Please remove pornography from third paragraph of article. my 10 yr old daughter discovered that while doing research for school. Mweston504 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles that may not be appropriate for children, but that does not mean Wikipedia should remove such articles, wikilinks to them, or references to such articles. Wikipedia is meant for adults as well as children. SMP0328. (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

SCOTUS votes
Some of the Supreme Court decisions referenced in this articles include the vote breakdown, others don't. There is never an explanation in the article as the relevance of those breakdowns. I think the vote breakdowns should be removed, but I post here first so as to avoid any potential edit wars. Does anyone object to the removal of the vote breakdowns of Supreme Court decisions mentioned in this article? SMP0328. (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020
The first amendment states, "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."

The websites states, "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

It's not or, it's and. 2604:5500:C162:6601:4833:F6BA:9601:ABC7 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article correctly provides the text of the First Amendment (... and to petition ...). SMP0328. (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Overquotation
The article was tagged on May 26 for having too many quotations. Is this tag appropriate and, if so, which quotations should be removed? I think most, if not all, of the quotations come from Supreme Court decisions and that is proper to quote from such decisions. They are vital in understanding First Amendment caselaw. After all, this article is about the meaning and history of the First Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I caused the overquotation tag when I started my First Amendment Establishment Clause additions and the additions which followed. In my view however the tag is not appropriate and there is no need to remove quotations. This is so, because, as correctly observed by user SMP0328., "most, if not all, of the quotations come from Supreme Court decisions and that is proper to quote from such decisions. They are vital in understanding First Amendment caselaw. After all, this article is about the meaning and history of the First Amendment." --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If no objection is stated by the end of this day, I will remove the overquotation tag. The tag should be removed as the quotations of SCOTUS decisions are clearly appropriate for this article. SMP0328. (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

3 of 12
Regarding this revert, I actually found it extremely surprising that the First Amendment was one of twelve, not ten, proposed rights, and that it was actually third, not first, in the actual bill that passed Congress. It's quite notable historically, and even relevant to modern political discourse. For example, some people who advocate for the freedom of religion say there was a reason the First Amendment is first...which turns out to be a much more complicated story than people think. Adding this in doesn't add too many words to the article, so I don't see why it should be suppressed. -- Beland (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's minutia. While the fact that the Bill of Rights was proposed as twelve amendments, rather than ten, it has nothing to do with the meaning of the First Amendment. Also, your change in wording was far less clear than the current wording and that the two proposed amendment not adopted did not deal with rights (see Congressional Apportionment Amendment and Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution). There are articles referencing the Bill of Rights being proposed as twelve amendments (e.g., United States Bill of Rights and Congressional Apportionment Amendment), but in this article it's just not notable. SMP0328. (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase already in the article "The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789" covers that the First Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights sufficiently. The fact that there were two other contemporaneously proposed Amendments is mentioned in United States Bill of Rights; it has nothing to do with the First Amendment, as such, and should not be separately covered in this article. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll leave the intro as is. There is a bit of an accuracy problem in the body, which points to the document passed by Congress as the "Bill of Rights", since that's presently understood to mean the 10 amendments, but the bill passed by Congress had 12 articles. I'll fix the wording there, at least. The Background section goes so far as to discuss the 20 amendments proposed by James Madison, so it seems the packages in which the First Amendment were previously included are in scope there. -- Beland (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The wording "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion..." at the start of the article provides a different connotation and general feeling than what was originally written. The original text from the Library of Congress states "First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.51.105 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020
The opening paragraph provides the wrong connotation of the first amendment. Using "...prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion..." suggests that there is no gap perceived gap between religion and government. I only ask that the intro paragraph follow the words originally written as "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." to avoid misinformation. The misinformation is from a quick digital personal assistant (Apple "Siri" or Google) query of "What is the first amendment," to which the summary shows the introductory paragraph where there provides no separation of religion to government while providing connotation to removing government oversight as opposed to not having anything to do with religion at all--which is the original reason it is the very first sentence in the first amendment. 146.229.51.105 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Hate speech" should be discussed somewhere in this article
Considering the First Amendment is the reason the USA is an outlier in the West as it does not legally recognise "hate speech", this is important to be explained explicitly somewhere in the article as something the that is protected speech. This should include a link to the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States Hyuhanon (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of the First Amendment
Some Americans are against it (cf. ), thus the article should contain a section detailing it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Core rights
The following explains this edit that I made: 12 April 2022 curprev 02:19, 12 April 2022‎ Maurice Magnus talk contribs‎ 212,361 bytes −36‎  Undid revision 1082180872 by P3Y229 (talk) Your version reduces clarity. See Talk page undo Tag: Undo

At first glance, "utter" and "print" seem redundant, because they repeat "speech" and "press." But they are worse than redundant. "Speech" under the First Amendment includes communication besides uttering -- music, for example. "Press" under the First Amendment includes communication besides printing -- tv journalism, for example.Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your edit.--P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Regulate vs Respect
Hello, in regards to the 1st Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

Wikipedia page uses the word “regulate” rather then “respect”.

Regulate is not the term used in the 1st Amendment. Please edit to provide the 1st Amendment as written in the Constitution. 71.63.251.200 (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022
The Lemon Test has been overruled, or at least had its abrogation recognized by Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022). Under the Separationists section,

change "The Lemon test has been criticized by justices and legal scholars, but it remains the predominant means by which the Court enforces the Establishment Clause." to "After the Supreme Court recognized the abrogation of Lemon v. Kurtzman in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), the Lemon Test was replaced with a "reference to historical practices and understandings." Rather than a legal test, the Supreme Court now interprets the Establishment Clause based on what the Founding Fathers understood it to mean.  Jaycim (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need secondary sources discussing this, rather than interpretation of a primary source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district-a-sledgehammer-to-the-bedrock-of-nonestablishment/
 * "the opinion tells us that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by “‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’ [citations omitted] ‘[T]he line’ ” that courts and governments ‘must draw between the permissible and the impermissible’ has to ‘accor[d] with history and faithfully reflec[t] the understanding of the Founding Fathers.’”
 * 2. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-myth-at-the-heart-of-the-praying-bremerton-coach-case/
 * "This particular court of “originalists” is increasingly looking to historical tradition, back to the days of the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was written, to determine modern-day rights."
 * 3. https://aclj.org/religious-liberty/the-aclj-participates-in-another-supreme-court-victory-as-the-court-upholds-coach-kennedys-right-to-pray-after-football-games-in-kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district
 * "Instead, in place of Lemon and the endorsement test, the Supreme Court holds that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted with reference to historical practices and understandings and the line drawn between permissible and impermissible conduct must accord with history that faithfully reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers." Jaycim (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears you forgot to change the answered parameter. I will do that now so that no confusion arises. Graystormmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 22:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have made confusion arise. Jaycim answered SFR's request for removable sources and changed the answered parameter. You can see that in the edit history. Either way, Jaycim provided the reliable sources which made reopening the request necessary. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't realize that, sorry for any confusion. Graystormmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 19:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The SCOTUS per sources apparently did rule with a different approach than the Lemon Test, but it doesn't mean it recognized its abrogation. Thinker78 (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph of First Amendment to the United States Constitution article uses the word "regulation" instead of documented in the U.S. Constitution word "respect"
"prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion" is not the same as "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- not even close.

This is an abhorrent rewrite of the context of the first amendment. I'm very certain that "respect" as written in the first amendment refers to an acknowledgement of right or privilege for an establishment of religion. Not regulation of it.

This is a level-5 vital article. At least use the exact words in the context they are written in our Constitution, particularly without an adequate, well-documented and accepted point of reference to the word regulated. 184.188.138.78 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.-- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)