Back HomeCongress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to speak freely or of the press to publish what it chooses. Nowhere does it guarantee the right to have one's opinion published; and, except when petitioning the Government for a "redress of grievances," nowhere does it guarantee the right to be heard. And, nowhere does it guarantee immunity from prosecution and punishment for words, spoken or published, that are libelous or intended to defraud someone or otherwise deprive them of their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.When considering the inalienable rights of free speech and freedom of the press, I have no doubt the writers of the Third Article of The Bill of Rights were mainly concerned with religious, personal, and political opinion: essays, articles, pamphlets, newspapers, books, and perhaps even advertisement for goods and services -- written words, spoken words -- and, in particular, words intended to be critical of the government and it's various agents.
As for visual artwork or presentations...except in the case of political cartoons and other images meant as satire, I doubt such forms of personal expression were even considered by the writers of the Bill of Rights. But, I also doubt such forms of personal expression were meant to be denied protection from government persecution. It's also my opinion the writers did not intend to disregard or to not extend protection to new forms of communication yet to be discovered or developed. They were thinkers, philosophers, innovators and inventors...they had to have some vision of the future.
Today, we have speech and other forms of expression and communication using technologies that were unknown 200 years ago. As new forms of communication are invented and developed, they must become protected by the first amendment. It's the only way to maintain the freedom of expression intended to be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Rich McCormack
Back Home