The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Let's have a discussion about those 'rights' that I have bolded.
Please review the following brief url and discuss. Whether you agree with the OCCUPY movement or not, consider our rights in conjunction with the First Amendment and current law and comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S880UldxB1o&feature=share

i cannot think of a right whether listed in the bill of rights or anywhere else that the founders meant to protect absolutely in all cases. free speech is not protected if the speech incites violence for instance. at any rate, the first amendment is a tough subject when discussing separated from the rest of the constitution where due process of law, etc., is in play. if the question is, have anybody's first amendment rights been violated as shown in the video, my answer whould be NO.

A true discussion of the metamorphosis of the meaning of the US constitution from writing to now would fill a fat volume. Since you used the OWS as a comparison I'll go there.

The purpose of the "freedom of speech" amendment was multifold. Firstly, some framers thought the right was so obvious as to need no mention in the document. The addition of the Bill of Rights was added by farseers who knew that governments know of no power they cannot take unless specifically prohibited. Not only is this concept true today, it is an example of what the framers were trying to prohibit, i.e., speech against current government.

The protection of the freedom of speech was not meant to apply to everyday loudmouths ... but it can be said to represent them. It was meant to protect citizens who feel the need to shout at the top of their lungs the injustices of the the current government. It was meant to protect those who would incite revolution and the overthrow the government when necessary. It was thought by the framers that a just government would be protected by the people and an unjust government should be attacked by the people. The government should be by the people and for the people ... not Wall Street, Drug Companies, multi national corporations, and career bureaucrats ... among other special interest groups.

And the "right to bear arms" was to make sure the public had the means to overthrow the government if necessary.

Over years of twisted logic, the rights to scream "Lets overthrow the government, bring your guns and let's do it now@" has become a crime.

The real world is ....

Paris, January 30th, 1787


Dear Sir,

My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.

Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.

To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.

I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.

Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.

Yours affectionately,

Th. Jefferson

Sadly, most Americans have never read the above document or understand it's contents.

most americans have never read the constitution, for that matter.

i've read much case history as regards the right to bear arms. i suppose i could have missed something but nowhere have i read that the founder's intent of the second amendment was that the people would have the means to overthrow the government. indeed it was only recently, heller, that the supreme court applied the second amendment in any fashion other than a state right to form a militia, ie., national guard. since heller, of course we have the right for our self defence but numerous gun restrictions are still in force to the point that it would be virtually impossible for the people to be able to outgun and overthrow the government.

So you didn't read the post above you?

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
***
The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

The KEY word here is STATE ......not FED not National

It was written to ensure the STATE had the means to defend against enfringements of Gov't against it's rights!

The National Guard is not a STATE militia! It is under Fed control!

oh yes, read the letter years ago. was not in any case history though nor have i seen it cited as a point of law.

actually the second amendment was written and rewritten no less than seven times but that's a moot point. the amendment as it stands today is what governs law. several militia acts now define the national guard as a state militia for the purposes of the second amendment. for instance, the militia act of 1903 was used as a basis for the national guard to remove george wallace from the steps of the university of alabama to enforce the civil rights act. but yes, the word, "state" in the amendment applies to government, either federal or state. it never applied to individuals before dc v heller.

It is used often to indicate "founder's intent". In 1776 the citizens of England outgunned and out fought the government and subsequently formed the United States of America.

It has only been in recent times there was any need to test the Second Amendment in court because the meaning was clear in times past that the purpose was to protect the citizen from a government gone astray... just like the other amendments.

then perhaps you can point to some case history that shows the letter is used as a basis of founder's intent. i've known the federalist papers to be used to establish intent but never this letter. doesn't mean it hasn't happened just means i haven't seen it. but again, you might point me in the right direction with litigant's names, case number, whatever.

there have been numerous challenges to the second amendment as to it's meaning many of those by the nra or it's factions. it's true that the supreme court had not accepted a case for more than seventy years before heller but that was because it found no fault in lower federal court rulings that would merit an argument. but the district courts have seen challenges to gun laws often lately based on the second amendment.

regarding the op and the emboldened print

'impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.'



I think the most telling part of the first amendment is the beginning words

Congress shall make no law



Pretty specifically, to me,(the only part that seems specific at all) it means CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW

which deals with religion, speech, the press, assembly, or petitions of redress

It takes authority over those issues out of the hands of congress.

Well it certainly didn't stop Congress from making laws to abridge those rights.

have they?

I always see the constitution and all the bills as the framework meant to be the starting point that will contribute to the changing environment of this country and it's changing needs. Due mostly to the falling away of the ignorance. That our founding fathers had.

You have to consider it this way when you see the allowance of slavery in the governing papers of this country.

We are realizing things that they could not as time has gone on.

The top realization is that the white race is not superior and that slavery is wrong.
Then came the how to try to be equal in a society that is predominately white racist for women, children, families of non whites, then for women in general, then for the disabled, then for the gay, etc...

So they are a spring board to be used to attempt to make a right and just society to live in for all humans.

Are you serious? ... or was that rhetorical?

and was only enacted a 140-some years later,so it definitely couldn't be the Militia!

actually they have, and they haven't. of course the first amendment applies to more than just laws made by congress and indeed many laws and even policies made at the municiple level have been put into effect and later challenged as unconstitutional. so your question is valid and hardly rhetorical, mh. since a law does not abridge anybody's constitutional rights unless it has been ruled so in federal court, no law now on the books is unconstitutional as abridging anybody's rights.

I think free speech has been taken too far. Free speech to me means you have the right to speak your mind vocally without retaliation and that's it.

The Washington Post took notice of the Obama administration's decision to continue to flout the categorical Fifth and Sixth Amendment prohibitions on imprisoning people without trial, in part because the decision also flagrantly flouts a Supreme Court decision.

The February 12 Post story noted that courts have not ruled for Presidential detention policies recently:

Federal judges, acting under a landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling that grants Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to challenge their confinements, have ordered the government to free 32 prisoners and backed the detention of nine others. In their opinions, the judges have gutted allegations and questioned the reliability of statements by the prisoners during interrogations and by the informants. Even when ruling for the government, the judges have not always endorsed the Justice Department's case.

In seeking to flaunt the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama can count upon the enthusiastic support from neo-conservative Republicans. “We’re beginning to look at the idea we need to change our laws come up with better guidance” South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham told Politico.com February 15. “I’ve been talking to the administration for the last couple of days. I’m encouraged that we’re going to sit down and do some of the hard things we haven’t done as a nation after Sept. 11.”

Graham believes he can ignore the clear instructions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as past decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court if he can bully the court into accepting a mere congressional statute. “I think we need to change our laws to give our judges better guidance — rules of the road,” Graham said. “We need a statute to deal with that.”

The Washington Post is not so convinced that the administration will prevail in its current effort to consign some detainees to Dredd Scott-style non-person status. “Nobody who has looked at the last 18 months of litigation can emerge with a high confidence level that the government is going to prevail uniformly in cases of people it regards as extremely dangerous," the Post quoted Brookings Institute fellow Benjamin Wittes. Obama's plan, according to the Post, is release some detainees, try others, and declare 50 as virtual non-persons legally:

Of the 192 detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, a Justice Department-led task force has concluded that about 110 can be safely released, either immediately or eventually. It recommended that about 35 be prosecuted in federal or military courts, leaving about 50 who are considered too dangerous to be freed but cannot face trial because the evidence is too shaky to hold up in court. Justice Department officials say they are also concerned that public trials might expose intelligence operations or other classified information.

While some neo-conservative totalitarians claim that the U.S. Constitution doesn't account for the rights of foreigners, this view is plainly against the text of the Constitution as well as long Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has defended the rights of foreigners in U.S. custody for at least the 170 years since the Amistad case. In the Amistad case, slaves were illegally kidnapped from their African home in 1839 (more than 30 years after abolition of the international slave trade) and sold from their Portuguese kidnappers to Spanish slave traders. The slaves violently rebelled on the Spanish ship La Amistad transporting them and drifted from Cuba to the U.S. coast. After the ship was taken ashore by a U.S. Navy ship, the surviving slave owners claimed the slaves for themselves. They argued that the rebellious slaves were foreigners who had no rights in the United States and were mere property that needed to be returned to them under the U.S. treaty with Spain. The slave owners were backed up by the Spanish ambassador and the U.S. Attorney General. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even foreign Africans had a right to a trial and to freedom under the U.S. Constitution. The court ordered the brave men who refused to submit to slavery be freed and given passage back to Africa.