[Looking for Diogenes]

t's not, it's written in clear standard(for the late 18th century) English. Very little of it is at all ambiguous. Congress shall make no law.. and right of the people shall not be infringed, seem awfully clear to me, but apparently not to the Federal courts, nor the Congress, nor the President.

1st Amendment: 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.

As I understand it, the CFR does not limit any person's right to speak, nor does it infringe on the freedom of the press, in the plain 18th Century meaning of those words.

It does limit campaign contribution and television and radio broadcast advertisements. I don't see anything in the clear, standard words of 1st amendment about those.

[NittanyLion]

As I understand it, the CFR does not limit any person's right to speak, nor does it infringe on the freedom of the press, in the plain 18th Century meaning of those words. It does limit campaign contribution and television and radio broadcast advertisements. I don't see anything in the clear, standard words of 1st amendment about those.

Do you see anything in the Second Amendment about semiautomatic weapons? Of course not, because technology has advanced since the time of the Founders. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak by whatever media is available to the speaker, so long as it doesn't result in the proverbial fist hitting a person's nose.

Surely you realize that the Constitution isn't a laundry list of rights, and that anything that doesn't appear is prohibited? Under your theory the internet is not protected by the Constitution.

[jaugust]

You are right in one regard and that it doesn't restrict an individual's right to speak. But the key operative in this whole mess is "Congress shall make no law" and the word "abridging". Has Congress made a law? YES! Is it a law which abridges? YES! It doesn't matter by which vehicle the law applies, media or soap box, the fact of the matter is is that Congress passed a law that it had no right to. Merriam-Webster defines abridge as: 1 a: archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH

[El Gato]

It does limit campaign contribution and television and radio broadcast advertisements. I don't see anything in the clear, standard words of 1st amendment about those.

Speech on TV or radio is still speech. There is some justification for the feds to regulate broadcast TV, because the signals can't help but cross state lines, and because there is a relatively limited ammount of bandwidth, or there was before the UHF channels came along. (But the principal was put in place before TV, when AM radio, which has more range and less useable station slots available than even VHF TV). No justification at all for regulating what you can say on your local cable system, but this law does that. Naked ladies are OK, but critising politicians is not? No justification at all for regulating the political content, in fact a prohibition on doing just that. Regulating the frequencies, power, location and other technical factors is a reasonable exercise of the commerce clause.