I'm replying to this post not because I agree or disagree with it specifically, but because it mentions one of my main issues with interpretation of certain amendments. This poster has quoted the 1st as I've indicated in his writing above, and again I'm in no way arguing with the poster, only to show my point .... In my mind the 1st says nothing about 'expression', it specifically says this:
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
"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."
It mentions speech, but nothing about any 'expression'. Now obviously the SCOTUS has ruled some years ago that expression can be considered 'speech'. I think the ruling had to do with some so-called artist throwing feces on a Rosary on a painting of the Virgin Mary, or something really similar. My whole point is that we all have a right to SAY whatever we want in regards to our government. But nowhere does it address what we can or can't say to an individual or any other entity other than the government. It in no way claims to protects us from consequences brought about by our personal and/or private speech. Now, I know every Amendment can be argued to include/exclude many things, but in my mind and reasoning they should be held to what they clearly say and as written. Yes, I'm a strict 'Originalist' and if the amendment included the word 'expression', then it would be open to interpreting the burning of the American or any other flag, throwing feces on a rosary, etc, but that word is not included. And I believe it just as wrong for SCOTUS or any other court to create specific definitions of some speech such as 'hate' speech to make it inclusive in the constitution.
What i like about Mr Kirk was the open dialogue he pushed. Get people thinking and challenging their own bias. The only way you learn is by speaking with those with differing opinions than your own, otherwise youre just co-signing your own BS. And really listening, not just waiting for your turn to talk treating it like a debate where there will be a winner decided. You can walk away still disagreeing but having an understanding of why that person feels that way.
