If Free-Speech falls, we're in trouble

[Seducio]

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.

Those are the words in the actual text.


The Constitution/Amendments was and is interpreted differently by different folks and its various interpretations are a feature not a bug. Reason is that the variations of interpretation enabled all original 13 States to get on board with ratification despite vast cultural differences at the time.

Since ratification in 1791, the First Amendment has been reviewed by the Supreme Court in many cases that have clarified and set parameters around what it means. Things like obscenity laws, the trials of comedians such as Lenny Bruce, as well as World War 2 state-side censorship have all played into how First Amendment works in the USA. So it has always been about regulating Government action and on the side of private citizens rather than most of the other powers in the Constitution that get delineated to the Govt.

With regard to political spending, most recently the 2010 Citizens United case enabled the concept that money equals speech and also that Corporations are people. This is highly controversial, but does seem in line with the intent of the Amendment. So essentially the current interpretation of the free speech clause with political spending looks like:


The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.