3 ms·

I interpret the first amendment to mean we have a right to make sounds come out of our mouths. The content of those sounds, however, is not protected. Since the

I interpret the first amendment to mean we have a right to make sounds come out of our mouths. The content of those sounds, however, is not protected. Since there are an infinite number of combinations of sounds, banning political statements does not impact that right. You are still free to make infinite sounds. The amendment also does not cover the right to record that sound or to write thoughts down on paper. And while the amendment does preserve the right to petition the government for grievances, it does not specify what form that petition must take or for the government to act on such grievances. Therefore, a law which requires all such grievances to be voiced at lowest point of the Atlantic Ocean is constitutional as well.

niij 11y ago
Thank you for this. This guy is either a supporter of Nanny States or has a massive lack of understanding of basic U.S. constitutional law.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Or maybe he is asking a question.
  - niij 11y ago
    >Not if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second. Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies. Not much of a question. Although this is clearly hyperbole, I think the implication that our rights be "nerfed" through loopholes is unconstitutional.