Intent and the First Amendment

“This is a public service announcement

With guitar

Know your rights

All three of them”

- The Clash

On December 10th, 1791 the Bill of Rights was ratified and added to the Constitution. These were the first ten amendments to be added to the “law of the land” that had been enacted in 1787. One of the most widely and wildly cited lines from that first set of ten is 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.”

In the simplest of terms, the First Amendment prevents the state and federal government from being able to fine, imprison, or otherwise impugn your attempt to achieve the overall goal of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” all due to what you say, how you assemble, and your godly pursuits.

No state in the country can then create any law to supersede this law to limit your 1st amendment rights due to the system of checks and balances.

Why is this important?

Well, the forefathers of this nation decided that they didn’t want to live under the threat of tyranny from a law body. The whole of the Revolutionary War was fought with this general desire and ideal. If you to make the decision to review the rest of the Bill of Rights, you can most likely find instances that directly correlate to the ending years of the hold the British Monarchy had over the colonists.

Who benefits from this right?

Anyone in the United States of America or any of its territories.

What protections does this right offer you?

As mentioned earlier in this article, no body of government or its facilities can arrest you for expressing yourself, coming together in protest, and for how you choose to worship in an ethereal being. It also protects the press of this country from the same for reporting what is happening in the news.

Now that we have that all out of the way, let’s go ahead and talk about certain misconceptions to this right. How does the freedom of speech afforded to you by the first amendment protect you from another person reacting to your expression?

It doesn’t.

If you say or express something that then angers, saddens, or negatively affects a person and then that person reacts to your expression; the first amendment does not protect you from their viewpoint.

Remember, they have the same rights you possess to express their displeasure with you. Unless that person that didn’t like your racist joke tries to then put you in jail due to their distaste in your joke, the First Amendment does not apply.

An incorrect assumption that exists about the right to freedom of speech is that the first amendment is a blanketed statement that gives reprieve from what any one person’s reaction is to what you have said or done. You have freedom from imprisonment, not freedom from consequences.

Think about it. If you have the freedom to express your thoughts and views, so does the person that opposes you.

What can you do as a person to have a more positive impression with what you say or express? You can consider additional factors that relate to the situation. Ever hear the saying “read the room”?

We can look at this simply as a mathematical equation; something + something = something. The question is how we fill in the blanks.

This is when the mathematical equation turns into a crossword puzzle. Let’s examine the potential variables.

Content- the actual piece in question.

Context- any elements from within the piece or around it that add to any person viewing it and their understanding of the…

Intent(ion)- what was the point of what the artist is trying to convey. What is their reason for creating a piece of art or portion of the art in front of a person.

Impact- the reaction that people have to seeing this art. The mileage will vary on this one due to each individual, groups of individuals, demographics, etc.

Next, before we fill in the equation with the above variables, we need to discuss what is covered by the equation. Anything you put forth for public consumption with no restrictions for monetary value; but that doesn’t exclude expressions that have a monetary value.

You guessed it! The moment you publish something for public consumption on the internet, you are now a public figure. It means, that hot take on your social media page is now out there for individuals to react to once consuming the media.

That public retweet of a QAnon conspiracy; that’s content someone can judge you for posting. The posting of a piece of art with offensive imagery, that’s content someone can judge you for posting as well. I think I have adequately made my point to move forward.

For explaining the Impact Equation, we need an example.

Let’s use something that is arbitrary and a regular occurrence in culture; the use of a highly offensive symbol in media; a swastika.

A recent comic book variant cover was previewed with a character of an indie comic series that had a smiley face with two swastikas for eyes. It is a character of a series that is not well known by public as a widely recognizable personality.

Let’s dissect this to demonstrate the equation.

Content- The comic cover with the questionable art.

Context- The character with swastika eyes is in an audience at a rap battle. This is a crowd of people no mention of an explanation of the problematic material.

Intent- This character is a regular character from an indie comic. Anyone that is a fan of the artist's typical work would know about this character.

Impact- there is a public reaction that is negative to the problematic presence of the swastikas. The artist makes the decision to alter the piece of cover art as a reaction to the outcry.

See, it’s the impact that seems to concern people the most in the situation. When the artist made the decision to alter the piece of art, from all ends of the fan base, there were varied opinions. How could he be forced to do that, obviously his intent matters and should be considered by everyone whom has been impacted by this item.

Sure, when there is clear context about that purpose of the art and the item from within the art; questionable things from within art are more acceptable.

Let’s go ahead and use the imagery of the swastika in relation to context.

Most people, whether they have any knowledge of comic book history or not, are familiar with Captain America. In March 1941, Captain America stormed the comic book battlefields of WWII. The iconic cover art, drawn by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, shows Captain America getting a good solid right hook in on Hitler in uniform.

The cover art also clearly has a swastika. What the art also has is context; in those elements come together to provide a scene where Joe Simon and Jack Kirby are clearly conveying a message that is Anti-Nazi.

The good Captain is clearly not bringing Hitler his tea.

With this context clearly presented in the piece of art; the intent is not easily questioned by anyone viewing the comic. The first impression is unmistakable due to the easily comprehension of all elements available to the eye of the consumer. If you were a comic consumer in March of 1941, you knew exactly what you were getting with Captain America.

The intention of the artists is not even a necessary factor.

With the newer comic cover with the character with swastika eyes simply does not have context to explain the presence of the problematic imagery, and unless any person not familiar with the artist previous work is a mind reader, the intent makes no difference.

That’s right, without proper context there is no place for intent. It doesn’t even become part of the equation.

With all, the equation should be clear:

Content + Context = Impact

In the interest of bringing this whole thing full circle; that impact will affect how you are seen due to the things you say or do regardless of the result of the whole equation. Unless your comic book cover or whatever ends with your imprisonment, your first amendment rights have not been violated.

Anything you say or do can be held against you in the court of public opinion.