[kall]

The first amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads: "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."

People often quote the 'Free Speech' amendment as a complaint of being told they aren't allowed to say something or other...like on a messageboard.

(BTW, this is NOT directed at anyone here, it's just a general observation.)

Now, as a non-US citizen, I can't really speak with a lot of authority, but from reading it, I would say that it is Congress, not a Website Admin, who is bound by it...meaning that the amendment does not apply to anyone BUT Congress.

What do you people think?

[dribblor]

This is a really interesting one. From an outsiders point of view, the American tendency to cling to their constitutional rights seems to have a lot more to do with the way that the constitution has been idealised as part of the American nation building process that any actual impact that the document has in relation to interpersonal private interaction. The painting of the constitution as a "founding document" and its use a nation building tool does seem to have distracted many from the fact that it was originally intended to essentially delineate the boundaries, explicitly, between the state (as federal body), the state (as local body), and the individual (as personal body). Im not certain, but I believe that in recent times, this tendency to reach the constitution in the private sphere has actually been upheld by a number of court rulings.

The same thing has begun here (NZ), where freedom of speech is protected by the Bill of Rights. This has already seen a number of bodies and sites attacked by individuals who claim their rights under this act are being restricted. One small issue however, in these situations they dont have any. Not only does the bill of rights, as i understand it, only impact on efforts by the NZ Government to restrain speech in certain, distinct situations, but it is a non entrenched bill that can be changed by a simple majority of the house.