"Experts".

The 1a is so the governtment cannot censor u, libel is between individuals/entities. So that example is wrong.

Terry stops need reasonable suspision which u stated. The 4th states "unreasonable". So yes, it is straight forward.

So basically ur entire reply is wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Yes, experts. Do you have a degree in constitutional law? Perhaps a specialty in legal language in the 1700s? The SCOTUS justices and the lawyers that argue cases before them aren't your average citizens when it comes to the legal realm. Are you going to tell me that all these well studied individuals and that all the schools of thought on interpretation are superseded by your interpretation of the constitution? What about when my interpretation differs a little, is yours still superior?

My libel example is not wrong, it is on point because the constitution never spelled out what types of things were protected speech and non protected speech. Case precedent had to define, redefine, and tweak what was understood to be protected speech and what is not. Case precedent had to establish that libel was not protected speech. If it were so simple and obvious as you suggest it would never have needed to go up to the supreme court.
I have another example for you, the 1st amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble which would cover protests. Fairly simple wording right? Does that mean if you were a public official and I wanted to protest an action you took that I could stand in front of your house with a loud speaker at 2am and would be protected by the first amendment? Clearly not which means that a line gets drawn somewhere, maybe by means of a volume level or by means of a time window. Clearly the 1st amendment doesn't say what time I can be there or how loud I can be so laws get passed and cases go through court to set precedent. Sometimes the answers are obvious but often they aren't. You can look back in hindsight and think they are obvious or look with your bias and think the answer is obvious but in reality it isn't.


The point of mentioning the terry stop was that it set the basis for what was reasonable. It is easy to write a law that argues something based on a reasonable standard but it is much harder to establish and put into play exactly what that means. Again, it wasn't so obvious until the case went to the supreme court and a precedent was set. Something can be seen as reasonable to one while unreasonable to another, the simple stance of "it is reasonable to me" or "it is obvious to me" doesn't work very good at setting a standard.