First Amendment Findings

When analyzing the 1st Amendment and trying to decipher the outdated text, I realized that many people may not understand all that this amendment entails. I rewrote it to state: The government will do nothing to prevent the expression of ideas to those that are interested in hearing or reading about them, nor will it do anything to promote or stifle the practice of any religious faith. Nor will it prevent the citizens from peacefully protesting or expressing opposition towards the government.

I asked 4 people their opinion of this definition. I interviewed a male in his 20’s, a female in her 50’s, a female in her 60’s, and a female in her 30’s. Each had a little different take on this definition. They all felt that the freedom of expressing ideas was a good thing, but a few felt that the freedom of religion allowed for radicals to abuse this right.

I was surprised to find out that there really was no pattern. I found that the location of where the person lived, and their background, impacted their opinion more than the age. The male who lived in Texas felt very strongly that American’s should have this right, however felt that there needs to be limit on these freedoms when it comes to people who are in the U.S. illegally. That illegal aliens should not have these same rights. 

The women in her 50’s lives here in Washington and her main focus was on the limits that are already implemented on Christians. She felt that the freedom of speech has been denied because a Christian can no longer say “Merry Christmas.” She mentioned the Sea-Tac Christmas tree debate. The woman in her 60’s was from Wyoming, she supports this freedom as long as it does not infringe on other’s rights. She focused on the religious extremist who would allow their children to die instead of get medicine, because they believe it’s in God’s hands. She lives in a very rural area and there are Amish settlements nearby. 

The last interview was a woman in her 30’s. She listens to the news daily and she supports the right of freedom to protest as long as it didn’t encroach on other’s rights. She mentioned the religious radicals who protest at innocent people’s funerals. All of these people had great examples of when we might need to place a limit on our rights.

These interviews made me realize that like so many other written texts, the 1st Amendment can be defined in various ways based on a person’s age, background, and area of residents. Each person put their personal take on these questions and gave local examples of their concerns. I think it would be a good idea to modernize this amendment so it is better explained to protect everyone’s rights equally and not allow for there to be loopholes that allow people to press their beliefs onto others. Each person has a right to their beliefs but no one has a right to belittle or slander someone else’s beliefs and opinions, and as of now this law blurs that line between expressing one’s opinion and putting down others.