Has our nation evolved to brush off our First Amendment? If The Bill Of Rights were to be written today, The First Amendment should be addressed through additional discussion, because our country and social circumstances have evolved and many have found negative advantages and loopholes which go against our First Amendment. One would argue more protection over certain rights is needed due to the many negative advantages and loopholes people have found to justify them going against the First Amendment. Many “rights” and or privileges are socially seen as natural rights we as people should rightfully have no matter the circumstance however since they are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights they are not taken into consideration to be defended in most situations. To be clear, other legal documents consider many natural rights, yet many seem to find that since it is not in a legal country-wide document (Bill Of Rights) does it truly matter? An additional argument is the Bill of Rights First Amendment covers basic rights, so would those basic rights make their way to protect other natural ones as well? In the First Amendment, you may see they may be specific when it comes to certain points “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the …show more content…
When you analyze the First Amendment you may get the insight of five freedoms which include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition which is a very versatile set of freedoms that can be umbrella freedoms for others.. However, only because a certain privilege is not specifically cited in our country's Bill Of Rights, many can use it as a way of defense. For example, the First Amendment states “freedom of the press” and not “freedom to inform” because the press can be anything, however to inform must be the truth. If that were the case perhaps the situation after the 2016 election wouldn't have