And the winner is ...... Soulforged, for not repeating himself more than three times and actually adressing the issues versus giving tart one liners (except in questoning one liners), and for grasping the idea behind having the Bill of Rights (amendments staututes) in the first place. Both as clarrification to the Constitution and to allow for further interpretation of law for future generations to expand upon (not limit or constrict).

Thing is, men make up the courts, and men have their prejudices - therefore, the most ambiguous of all the amendments (The First; I mean, it covers alot of ground without defining the limitations of them - freespeech, religion, the press ... gah! - In effect, maybe they meant there should be absolutely no restrictions) - is revised yearly by the Supreme Court. And has been for +200 years. According to the stacking of the Court itself - remember some of the cases prior to the Civil War that upheld it illegal to speak against slavery (anyone argueing it was right ..... please, think! Had they not - they may have prevented the war. Doubt it, but ... what they hey - maybe as obscure as possible).

As for "freespeech", in that catagory and that alone - it has for the most part been sloughed off on the States; unless they arrogantly violate it (in which case the ACLU gets dragged into it - thank God for the ACLU, they'll defend anyone's rights). My point, is speech and our freedom to use it in any manner we choose - even for sedition - is granted by law. What is not guaranteed, is that anyone will listen.