The ‘war on terror’ weakened the first amendment. Now we desperately need it
Over the past quarter-century, the US supreme court has repeatedly failed to protect first amendment rights. We are suffering the consequences Congress ratified the first amendment in 1791 but the supreme court didn’t breathe life into it until after the first world war, when prosecutions of antiwar protesters led the justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis – and then, fortunately, othe
Read it as
Written from a Scripture-informed vantage point, without partisan framing.
Length
Sign in to keep these choices for this story. Each version is written by AI from this article's text only, then cached. Changing the perspective does not change the length you picked, and vice versa.
Biblical · 3 min version
Spoken by AI text-to-speech, generated from the text on screen.
Left, centre, right
How each side is covering it, and the common ground between them weighed by Scripture. Written from collected headlines and feed snippets only.
The ‘war on terror’ weakened the first amendment. Now we desperately need it
The Guardian argues that, over the past quarter-century, the Supreme Court repeatedly failed to protect First Amendment rights. It foregrounds the continuing consequences of those failures and places them within the longer history of protections for antiwar speech.
Often missing: The supplied coverage does not present the security arguments for these policies or competing interpretations of the Supreme Court’s record.
Left of centre
The post-9/11 security order and First Amendment rights
The supplied left-of-center and center coverage agrees that the post-9/11 security order continues to affect civil liberties and human rights. A historic Christian worldview calls government and citizens to value truth, human dignity, justice and mercy rather than treating security or liberty as excuses for wrongdoing. It also asks whether legal systems protect people vulnerable to oppression, including members of the persecuted church.
Nobody is asking: How can society pursue genuine security while acting justly toward dissenters, detainees and other people exposed to state power?
What both sides agree on, read through a Christian worldview
No right-of-center headline was supplied
Only left-of-center and center coverage was supplied for this story; no right-of-center coverage was provided. A right-of-center framing therefore cannot be assessed without guessing.
Often missing: Because no right-of-center coverage was supplied, its omissions cannot be evaluated.
Right of centre
Scripture connections
Passages readers commonly bring to a story like this, shown with their surrounding context.
Micah 6:8
Ethical application · WEBHe has shown you, O man, what is good. What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
A reader might connect Micah’s call to justice, mercy and humility with the task of evaluating security policies and protections for speech. The passage offers an ethical standard for examining state power without claiming that this story fulfills prophecy.
Read the surrounding context (Micah 6:6-8)
How shall I come before Yahweh, and bow myself before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will Yahweh be pleased with thousands of rams? With tens of thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my disobedience? The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
This interpretation is debated. Christians differ over how justice and mercy should shape the balance between national security, civil liberty and submission to governing authorities.