What's the point?

Reader comment on: Schumer Versus The First Amendment
in response to reader comment: Congress doesn't really declare war anymore anyway

Submitted by Matt (United States), Nov 28, 2011 06:30

The real point of the 1st Amendment's focus on speech was to protect political speech. Most of our fights over 1st Amendment speech issues have been collateral stuff that, while I think we're generally better off not allowing the government to stop the speech, is a side show compared to political speech.

OK, so some rich people can have a bigger influence. You also have a right to join with other people. In a country of 300 million, the chance of your individual voice making much difference is pretty slim. But if you think stifling speech is going to make it easier for your speech to be heard over that of others, you're either not thinking very hard, or are an incumbent politician.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Tweaking of First Amendment [117 words]Gina PryorNov 26, 2011 22:17
Amendments are as American as apple pie
[w/response] [234 words]		benNov 23, 2011 20:08
↔ Elections have changed a bit
[w/response] [51 words]		benNov 23, 2011 22:59
↔ FOC I agree with you here [73 words]Orange thunderNov 24, 2011 20:05
↔ Congress doesn't really declare war anymore anyway [146 words]benNov 24, 2011 21:26
↔ ⇒ What's the point? [123 words]MattNov 28, 2011 06:30

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to What's the point? by Matt

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.