Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 10, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Freedom of speech (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) thing(s).
WikiProject Human rights (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Liberalism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Liberalism task force.
 
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Undue weight on Obsidian thingy[edit]

  1. P3Y229 (talk · contribs) 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,

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 TJRC, above. Thank you for your actions at the article page, and your comments here on the talk page. Most appreciated, — 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 (talkcontribs) 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.[1] But every United States appeals court which adressed this issue concluded[2][3][4][5][6][7][1] 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.[1][8]

I hope that this proposal can in light of TJRC's guiding comments be includued in the named subsection. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I strongly agree with this action by TJRC. 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 SMP0328., above. Cheers, — 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 (talkcontribs) 22:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll remove it as redundant to case law from higher courts, at Template:US1stAmendment. — Cirt (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. — Cirt (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Branzburg v. Hayes[edit]

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,

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

I added the Branzburg v. Hayes] quote source. --P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusing sentence[edit]

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.[9]

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. — 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 SMP0328.. Thank you, — 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 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to use better WP:RS secondary sources please, thank you. — 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)
    • ^ a b c Arthur L. Alarcón, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Andrew D. Hurwitz (17 January 2014). "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (12-35238)". United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case. Retrieved 2 February 2014. 
    • ^ Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 1975)
    • ^ Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1980)
    • ^ Garcia v. Board of Education., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1985)
    • ^ In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litigation, 797 F.2d 632, 642 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1986)
    • ^ Flamm v. American Association of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2000) (holding that “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable”)
    • ^ Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit), affirmed, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) (“Any effort to justify a media/nonmedia distinction rests on unstable ground, given the difficulty of defining withprecision who belongs to the ‘media.’”)
    • ^ Hull, Tim (17 January 2014). "Blogger's Speech Rights Championed in the 9th". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 2 February 2014. 
    • ^ Mataconis, Doug (May 28, 2013). "Bloggers, Media Shield Laws, And The First Amendment". Outside The Beltway. Retrieved August 9, 2013.