Let’s recap - The First Amendment
rkb:
I’m not a lawyer (I guess that failing will haunt me forever, cause I always feel the need to preface anything law-related by saying so), but one thing that has always irked me is the tossing around of the term “the First Amendment.” Audacia Ray quoted this “Support the Friends of Jefferson Legal Defense Fund” post:
This case is of concern to anyone whose sexuality does not fit the standard mold—because it could happen to you. This case is of concern to all writers, because Jefferson’s blog is being used as evidence against him—and that could have repercussions for our First Amendment rights.
Here is the text of the First 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.
I’m sorry, but this is NOT a First Amendment issue. Anyone can write pretty much anything they damn well please (within certain limits, yes, but those aren’t applicable here). Bloggers know this, writers know this. The issue is not whether Jefferson had the legal right to blog about what he did. No one is taking away his right to free speech, but rather his ex-wife is using said speech in her lawsuit. Maybe I’m the only one who sees a gigantic difference between the two. To me, conflating them is unfair and incorrect. I may post again about this, because I’m not a huge fan of the language being used around this case, but that’s a separate post.
