Suggest A Photo

Probably, they had great foresight


No, but it comes in handy



Do you think that the founding fathers created the first amendment because they thought, "hey, 200 years from now people online will need to be obnoxious buffoons without any consequences"?

Top Comment

The 1st Amendment does not apply online. People are routinely censored online arbitrarily.

+554 See / Add Replies

Bozette Bozette


The 1st Amendment does not apply online. People are routinely censored online arbitrarily.

+554 Reply

Bozette Bozette

That certainly seems to be the understanding of the 1st amendment that a lot of twits have, especially those who view a disagreement as a violation of MAH FREEZE PEACH.

The 1st amendment's interpretation has been clarified since it was created, but it does not guarantee that there will be no consequences for what you say nor that online platforms must guarantee the right of anyone to say anything on said platform.

+334 Reply

Logan Logan

In response to “That certainly seems to be the understanding...

"Mah freeze peach"

+223 Reply

Carla Carla

The American Founders created the First Amendment because they understood that there is nothing you can say that's more dangerous than the act of silencing people. When people can speak their minds, there is the possibility that they will understand each other. Through mutual understanding, maybe people will even come to respect each other. And when people don't agree on an issue, there is no confusion over what the disagreement is about.

Speaking of confusion, one of the things I've been noticing lately is the news referring to illegal aliens as "immigrants," just... immigrants. Well fu*k, Melania Trump is an immigrant, why would the President want to crack down on immigrants? Oh, you mean foreigners who broke the law to enter the country without any kind of vetting to see whether they're dangerous or not. How about "foreign intruders"? Seems like a more accurate description to me, certainly more accurate than "immigrants." My parents were immigrants, LEGAL immigrants who were law abiding citizens - educated, honest, productive members of society. To lump them together with a bunch of criminals is just wrong, and it's the worst kind of wrong... FACTUALLY INACCURATE.

But this is what happens when you limit free speech, the lies start creeping in... little by little... until everything you say is a lie. Because friends, the truth is ugly and painful, reality isn't always nice. If you want to make people hate you, tell them the truth. Lies are pretty and sweet, they always tell you exactly what you want to hear, but they mislead you. They mis-lead you, they lead you places you never intended to go and don't want to be.

+555 Reply

Maze Maze

"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."

The first amendment was created to prevent the government from passing laws that limit free speech, from punishing and imprisoning people because of what they say or what they write (which routinely happened in other countries at the time and still does in many modern nations). It was not designed to eliminate all social consequences for what people say or to prevent private institutions and websites from setting their own policies about what's acceptable within their domains.

+443 Reply

Thibault Thibault


The First Amendment sets clear limits on government power with regard to speech and religion. While the First Amendment has remained unchanged since its ratification, with the rise of Progressivism, actions taken by all three branches of government have worked to undermine it. As a result, government today is able to exert an ever-growing control over the lives of American citizens.

+222 Reply

Budwick Budwick

They knew human nature well enough to foresee the continued march of stupidity. I don't believe they said anything about a lack of consequences, but I could be wrong.

+111 Reply

PhilboydStudge PhilboydStudge

Yes, but not without consequence. Some of them (Adams and Jefferson specifically) used newspapers (their equivalent to social media) to be obnoxious trolls, they went well beyond protected speech, delving into outright slander.

To your point, I think they realized there are consequences. I think they just preferred the people, not govt., dictate the consequences. Allowing govt. to decide the consequences would be more than a small conflict of interest.

+111 Reply

ForkNdaRoad ForkNdaRoad

Please login or create an account to make a comment.

Sort comments by: Replies Date Score Loves

Find out your friends' opinions

Amirite is the premier opinion-based social network where people from all around the world discover, debate and discuss today's hottest issues. Share your perspective to the world and interact with like-minded individuals on breaking news, hot topics and controversial issues now!

With that many angles, the discussions on Amirite will open your eyes to a panoramic view of your world that you won't get anywhere else, allowing you to see the big picture and discuss it.

Every opinion matters on Amirite.

Sign up to have your opinion heard!

It only takes a second.
Connect with Facebook, Twitter or Google.

or create an account with your email...

Sign Up Already Have An Account?

Login to your Amirite account...

Login Forgot Your Details? Need An Account?

Enter your email address and we'll email you your account details.

Send Details Back To Login Form

Login using...


Forgotten username or password?
We'll send you your username and a new password.

Email Address


Sign up to have your opinion heard!

Show posts as Grid List

By creating an account you indicate that you have read and agree to abide by our rules.

Create My Account