[captain obvious]

What would they do? I'm doing a paper on this - need good examples.

[buy guns]

(when i say speech i mean anything written, said verbally, sung, or whatever other form you can think of)

-in private you could say whatever you want

-you cant say what you want in public unless you have an FPC (free speech card). you couldnt get it until you are 21 years old. some states will make them hard to get and other states will make them easy to get while some states wont even offer them

-anything that sounds remotely close to what a terrorist would say will be completely illegal. this will be known as the TSB (terrorist speech ban)

-when you use or talk about having free speech people will look at you odd and wonder why you would ever want to say what you want

-free speech in the UK will be completely outlawed

-there will be an entire criminal underground dedicated to buying and selling books and cd's, especilly those made illegal by the TSB

-you will be escorted out of walmart after buying pens, cd's, or books

[charby]

books the have over ten pages would be outlawed

printed paper that could cause a paper cuts would be outlawed

popup books would be banned

[Daedalus]

Freedom of the press means you have a right to read the sports section only. The right to keep and bear arms only means arms suitable for hunting.

[cropcirclewalker]

Speed readers and auctioneers would have to buy a $200 tax stamp after enduring months of beaurocratic red tape.

[srschick]

I some states you could not have a book in a backpack or even a note in your pocket. In other states only people that had a "just reason" could obtain a license to do such. Certain states would allow anyone to carry what ever form of liturature they wanted.

[Taipei Personality]

All books, CDs, DVDs, etc., would have to be carried openly in your hands unless you had a special permit. Cannot carry in a bag. No whispering without a permit. Some states would only let you carry in your hands while others would only let you carry in a bag.

Your license to carry in a bag would not be valid in any other state unless that state had an agreement with yours. You would have to undergo mandatory training before being allowed to carry books in public.

[Penforhire]

Internet radio would be consider terrorist propaganda.

There would be a letter-tax on all publications.

Disasters of all sorts would be reported like N. Korea handled that train wreck.

Government abuses of all types would never happen, except as reported in the foreign press.

[boofus]

Individuals do not have the right to own books, newspapers, or TVs. Only libraries are allowed to store such media. If a citizen wants to read books or watch TV he should join the library.

After all it's a 'collective right' as much as the 2nd is.

[Shanghai McCoy]

Well,I don't know about the government but if the ACLU supported the 2nd Amendment with the passion that they show the 1st we would all be required to own a gun.:D

[cpileri]

How bout the 10 day waiting period before being able to purchase literature of any type, a federal background 'instant' check, and .gov creatign a de facto register of anyone who owned any books, letters, etc.

A 10 cent per component tax on pencils, pens, loose leaf paper, etc.

Linguistic fingerprinting? voice recording? a sample of your handwriting? all for the registry.

If you disagree with any of this, you are a terrorist and will be labeled an enemy combatant; held indefinitely, in secret, without charges nor trial.

C-

[The Real Hawkeye]

Only the government would be allowed to have word processors, and desk top publishing capabilities. You would have to use pencil and paper, and mechanical typewriters, which would require a license in some states, and may not be permitted at all in others.

[longrifleman]

Some hardcore antis would argue that only goose quill pens and ink made from berries are acceptable.

[RealGun]

The Supreme Court would avoid hearing cases on the 1st amendment. There would be a gentleman's agreement in the Federal court system that such cases should be kept from rising to the high court. Should a case get that far, its hearing would be denied on a technicality.

As time passed, the web of laws that infringed on the 1st amendment would be so endemic that the Supreme Court and other appellate courts would be afraid of the social and political consequences of declaring the whole house of cards to be unconstitutional.

The amendment would have to be instrumentalized, so that people were controlled by way of the control of objects which enable expression. Expect that the media of expression would be constant targets of legislation at every level of government. For example, one would have to have a license or pay a heavy tax to own a recording device or to publish a book.

Government would craftily and steadily create the means to control distribution of information. For example, there would no longer be any freedom of government information. All government news would be on CSPAN, the premise perhaps being that a free press too often distorted the facts with a political agenda and should stick to reporting more local news. Nothing would be remotely spontaneous like a press conference. The spin doctors would be completely in control.

Particularly powerful media would be reserved for use by the government. For example, the internet would not be available to private citizens. There would be a ban on internet connections and the hardware to enable it. There would be some lame reason why that was justified, military use for example or that it was abused by terrorists within our borders. After a decade or two this would be considered normal except by a minority of people who knew their history and the principles of government.

Anything resembling a right of a citizen would steadily erode, and the amendment would effectively be ignored (by government). However, a facade of free speech would be maintained, since the instrument of the voice would be only indirectly affected.

A stretch maybe, but I think that's the idea.

[cropcirclewalker]

"Congress shall make no law" would have to be determined to be an antequated phrase. The supremes would declare that even if they did make a law, it would be alright because of the commerce clause.

[seeker_two]

Think the Campaign Finance Reform law enforced daily by the ATF....:what:

[Zach S]

There would be another AWB (Assualt Words Ban) which bans 26 specific words because of thier extensive military use, and therefore have no place in society.

[Standing Wolf]

Feinswine would advocate banning Saturday night books.

Some states would allow selected citizens—for a fee, of course—to carry pocket books, but it would be strictly regulated.

The term "pre-ban magazine" would have a completely different meaning.

[Zach S]

The term "pre-ban magazine" would have a completely different meaning. ROFLMAO!!!!

[chrisb507]

We're missing some of the good ones!

Amendment I
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.


- Having more than 10 friends over would require you to be a law enforcement officer.

- You would need to get a permit to go to church.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Every publication imported into the United States must meet the "sporting use" criteria.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Any collection of books exceding 20 volumes would be scornfully referred to in the media as a "library," and there would be moves in Congress to require a special license for it, which would be prohibitively expensive for most people.

[The Real Hawkeye]

There would be efforts in Congress to close the "flea market loophole," whereby readers would no longer be able to avoid registering their books with the Federal Government via private sales at flea markets.

[ravinraven]

This has all been a great Friday night, pre-gin laugh. I do appreciate it. However, I think the guy who started the thread said something about a paper he needed to write. The question is, I suppose, are you studying government or comedy? Another question might well be: What's the difference?

Anyway. The first amendment is totally dead on college campuses [or is that campii?]

The free speech thing is totally dead. I got canned from a SUNY unit 9 years ago because I was on a jury that found a politically incorrect, but true verdict involving, you guessed it, a phony rape. The jury was trashed by the local feminazi man-trashing-kommando unit. I defended the jury in the paper. A year later there was a financial crisis and 25 people were slated for dumping. I was the only one out. {one of the man-trashers told me this point blank. The next day, after she sobered up, her lawyer offered to sue me if I dragged her into court.} The much vaunted UUP and its local slime balls helped shove me out the door. So much for the UUP's interest in education. They are an anti-liberty, anti-American pack of sleeze balls. {My dear departed uncle said, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Well, Unc, that was pretty nice, I think, considering what the UUP really is.}

Now, on to "the government shall make no law respecting the establishment or religion or the free exercise thereof" or how ever it's worded. All Multicultural [read AntiKultural] programs have established a religion and are trashing Christianity. The chants, rallys, trashing of Christian symbols, ceremonys and holidays is the exact stuff of a new religion trying to displace an old one.

Do not send any kid of yours to any college or university which sports an AntiKultural program.

Another SUNY unit I'm real familiar with trashed their whole computer science department in order to fund a new AntiKult program about 10 years ago.

In some, maybe most, he**, maybe all respects the First is deader than the Second. The First Amendment has been whittled in unnoticable bits. It's easy to create a media biased against liberty. The masses do not notice until it is to the point that noticing gets you derided by your "peers." You should hear college profs I know hoot when I mention the trashing of the First. Then I remind them of my story and they are forced to shut up because they know it's the truth. One of the @!@#!!#@!*#*!s was instrumental in my firing. [we do have some interesting coffee sessions] But it will do no good in the long run for the rest of society.

The Second is a bit tougher to trash because a lot more people are noticing it. There are a lot more people who are aware of the use of guns in protecting liberty than in the use of the press.

The pen is mightier than the sword--[gun]. Interesting that the First Amendment involves the pen and the Second the sword.

[note: The First is actually the third, because the first two amendments weren't ratified way back when so we wound up with ten amendments in the original batch]

Well, the ice is melting and the gin is getting warm.

rr

[TallPine]

reprint of something I wrote a while back:


In order to more fully inform the loyal subjects (you are loyal, aren’t you?) of the Washington Empire, the following 21st century interpretation of the First Amendment is provided:

Many uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, and otherwise defective persons have had the mistaken notion that “the right of the people” refers to an individual and personal right. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

For example, it has been falsely asserted that “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” convey some supposed right of various individuals to gather in one location without permission to complain and/or harass the overworked and underpaid servants who toil ceaselessly in their behalf to provide security and comfort to the masses.

All educated and enlightened scholars now realize that “the right of the people to assemble” in this case refers to the right of the state and federal legislative bodies to meet and enact restrictive laws for the betterment of the country. It does not convey a right to everyone to assemble, only the duly elected representatives of the people. As long as some people have the right to assemble, the constitutional provision is being satisfied.

It is simply too dangerous for common, uneducated, and unenlightened persons to gather together in large numbers (such as more than ten, unless they had already gathered prior to 1984). Someone could get hurt.

Obviously, this “right of the people” is also limited in the other clauses of the First Amendment, such as the ability of congress to make laws abridging the freedom of speech. This restriction does not hinder the ability of the congress to abridge the freedom of speech of individuals, but only that the congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech of the members of the state and federal governing bodies, and certain other approved groups of persons, such as responsible journalists.

Free speech is just simply too dangerous to be allowed to the common people. Who knows when some wacko fruit cake could just lose it and suddenly start shooting off his white male mouth about some paranoid fears of the benevolent government which you are all so fortunate to have looking out for your best interests?

Again, as long as congress, the state legislative houses, and certain nationally recognized and responsible journalists have the right of free speech, the constitutional provisions of the First Amendment are being met. It is not necessary for all to have the right of free speech, as long as some have such a right.

Now that you have been properly informed, it is presumed that you will not be causing any more trouble.

[crewchief]

Everyone forgot two scary things:

1) Their would be no internet

2) Bacause of #1 their would be no "The High Road":what:

[jimpeel]

http://home.indy.rr.com/bwgoodwi/Captain%20Obvious.gif

If the government treated the 1st Amendment the way they do the 2nd What would they do?They would pass Campaign Finance reform and the SCOTUS would uphold it as constitutional.

[gunsmith]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25602&highlight=assembly

We can use their "logic" to outlaw million mom marches!
The anti's twisted lie says that a Millitia is the National Guard
conviently ignoring "the peoples right" to KABA...
Well then,the 1st amendment says "the right of the people to peaceably assemble"...
I know in CA we have a group of politicians called the "Assembly"
(they pass all kinds of stupid laws)
they are stupid,but peace full.
Well if we the people need to rely on the NAT Guard to keep
thugs out of our homes and tyrants out of office,I see no reason why all the leftie loony toons should have the right to assemble when we the people have a perfectly good assembly!
they should all be told to go home and get a license to prove they need to be out there blocking traffic


__________________

[gunsmith]

should have the right to assemble when we the people have a perfectly good assembly

You could say(using the logic of the anti gunner) that being we have an Assembly in office,is the "peoples right" to assemble! You know the Assembly is our so called "collective" right and holding up signs peaceful like on the sidewalk and walking around is illegal.
You know how those evil nazi's try to say the 2nd is some kind of right to have a National Guard? even though it says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE even though courts have upheld that the people is the people in the other amendments!:fire:
Dangit! now I'm all angry again...
Standing Wolf! say some thing funny,quick!

[ravinraven]

You nailed it! What you describe/state in your post is exactly what is going on on most college/university campuses and in all government schools. The wonder is that the government right now still pretends to guarantee free speech, etc. Within a generation, what you put in your post will be simply approved by BLOTUS [Bicameral Legislature Of The US], signed by POTUS and ignored by SCOTUS.

And, just think, you'll be credited as the author of this "progressive" legislation. Aren't you thrilled? I certainly am just hearing it fom you.

rr

[iapetus]

There would be a shadowy network of "book clubs" scattered around the US, each with stockpiles of thousands of sheets of paper, pen-refilling equipment, etc.


Edited to add:
Oh, and there would be a campaign to ban large painr-brushes, which a terrorist could use to bring down a plane (by dropping it into the iar intake) :D