First Amendment Flaws

Recent events give reason to have another look at the First Amendment. There is more to shouting fire in a venue where there is no fire, causing panic, to deem the freedom of speech abused.

---

In today's culture, it has borne many disgusting perverts and hypocrites who use it as a defense. There is something wrong when one person with a bug up you know where, can disrupt centuries of tradition, or think you can take somebody else's space. In its present interpretations, it can distort and complicate the meaning of "rights," having created a monstrosity called the ACLU, gone amok at times. Too often it protects the protests of the very few to the detriment of the rights of the many, in order to placate political correctness and place yokes on the conservative voice. Moving on. Discretion was lacking by Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine, when it illustrated cartoons of a forbidden image of the warlord, revered as a prophet by ignorant and pathetic, extreme radical Islamists who have hair trigger detonation tolerance. When you poke a wild beast with a stick, it will turn on you. Pamela Geller organized the Jihad Watch Mohammed Art Exhibition and Cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. It was the stick that goaded two animals to try to shoot up the place, as did those animals in Paris, France. There is probably a significant number of Yin-Yang examples of abusive judgment interpreting the First Amendment, that have lined the pockets of tort lawyers. A Congressional forum should be formed to consider refining defining the interpretation of the First Amendment, to eliminate obvious discrepancies and to address its application in the atmosphere of today's legal immigration failure, erosion of the law, race relations and radical terrorism. Free speech isn't always free and sometimes it can become very expensive. Especially if the speech isn't honest. As is, it is open to Slick Willie Clintonese interpretation of what is.