Thoughts on the First Amendment
- Rabbi Edward Friedman
- Sep 21, 2025
- 5 min read
I have just finished listening to the Audible version of Noah Feldman’s biography “The Three lives of James Madison.” As is well known, the Constitution of the United States was primarily based on a proposal by Madison. The representatives of the then thirteen states wrangled over various aspects of the document in the convention presided over by George Washington and there were compromises made to help “sell” the various provisions to the very different interests of the northern and southern states. Ultimately, a document was produced and over the course of several years, thanks in part to a series of essays written anonymously by Madison and Alexander Hamilton with some pieces by John Jay and published subsequently as “The Federalist” the constitution was ratified. One major complaint about that document was the lack of a Bill of Rights. Madison, at the time, did not feel that such an addition was necessary. He thought that these rights were self-evident and if not self-evident, they were already enshrined in the constitutions of the several states and it seemed to him superfluous to state them again in the federal constitution.
In spite of these qualms and partially in order to bolster his campaign for a seat in Congress, he drafted a document which was edited and tweaked into the Bill of Rights. One often wonders how many people have actually read that Bill of Rights let alone the Constitution to which it was amended. For many years, one heard of people “pleading the fifth,” at least the part of that Amendment against self-incrimination. More recently, all the talk was about the Second Amendment as “reinterpreted” by the Supreme Court to encourage a further proliferation of lethal weapons throughout the country and leading to our ongoing plague of murder and assassinations.
Recently, the focus has shifted once more to the First Amendment which states: “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.”
I must confess that prior to last week I had never heard of Charlie Kirk. Whatever one thought of his views on the issues of the world, his assassination calls for severe condemnation. At the time of his assassination, he was exercising his rights under the First Amendment to our Constitution to share his opinions and to promulgate them among his followers. He did not deserve to be shot because of his exercise of free speech. It is tragic that he has been cut down at such a young age and his wife and children have suffered this terrible bereavement. We should join in offering sincere condolences on his loss to his loved one.
Various commentators have filled me in on his views. Some have praised him pointing to his strong support for Israel and the Jewish people. Others have condemned him, calling him a racist and a supporter of some of the worst policies of the extreme right. I’ve seen some of the videos and both sides have a basis for their views. It is not for me to judge him, a Higher Authority now will deal with his legacy.
What troubles me and so many others has been the response of the President and his followers and those who feel compelled to follow to jump to conclusions regarding the killer even before the alleged shooter was identified and arrested and spinning the narrative in order to attack those who disagree with the President and with views espoused by Charlie Kirk. Over and above this false narrative, is the suspicion that all of this noise has been generated to divert attention from other matters which should be of greater concern in the policies being advanced by the federal government and in the activities of the principals in the administration. There is also the fear that this propaganda may arouse a further violent response by followers of Kirk and the President. Many have noted that we have not seen similar outpourings of sympathy for victims whose politics do not jive with those of this administration or for those totally innocent children and others who have been cut down in cold blood by people supposedly exercising their second amendment rights.
Returning to the First Amendment, one now wonders how the principles which allowed Charlie Kirk to express his views positive or negative, is now being ignored and pressure is being exerted by the President and his administration on individuals and media companies to cut off anything which appears to be the least bit critical of him and his followers. Returning to 18th century history, we see the second president of the United States, John Adams, for all his virtues, criminalizing the publication of articles critical of his policies at the time and pushing through Congress the Sedition Act of that period. Newspaper editors then were jailed for their editorials and suffered the consequences of this inability of President Adams to accept that in a free society, people are entitled to different views and people can disagree without being disagreeable or resorting to violence or oppressive laws.
Looking back on James Madison’s biography, his composition of what became the Bill of Rights was the result of a campaign promise he made in order to defeat his good friend James Monroe for a seat in Congress. After the election, he and Monroe continued their long-term friendship and Monroe even served as Secretary of State for Madison during the latter part of his presidential term. It was not the last time the two held differing views on important issues, but they maintained respect for the integrity of each other, something we used to hear among our national legislators, but seldom hear today.
Anyone who has studied the Talmud knows that our rabbis often differed on matters of Jewish law and sometimes attacked one another bitterly, but they recognized that both sides (and sometimes multiple sides) spoke out of a commitment to find the truth. In the controversies between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai, we are told that the matter was resolved by a Heavenly voice that proclaimed, “Elu va-elu divrei Elohim Chayim, both represent the words of the living God, but the law follows the School of Hillel.” One reason given for the predominance of the Hillelites was that they had the respect to cite the views of their opponents and even when they differed on laws affecting marriage and divorce, they did not refrain from marrying one another’s daughters. In short, they maintained collegiality.
I used to enjoy listening to the jokes made at the National Press Club Dinner each year. Comics poked fun at the President and other national figures and then the President himself, being a good sport, would get up and give his own speech, often making fun of himself good-naturedly. We don’t see that anymore. No one plans to issue a volume of the humor of this president who doesn’t seem to have a sense of humor. Satire is lost on him and his response to any hint of a negative statement is to pressure the source to shut down or to face legal consequences for exercising the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Our Torah portion emphasizes the free will with which we have been endowed by our Creator and we are called upon to choose what is good and what will be a source of life for our society and our world. We are free to make bad choices as well as good ones. As we approach a new year this week, we pray that the good choices might outweigh the bad and that we might experience a year of blessing and peace.
Shabbat Shalom
Rabbi Edward Friedman
Comments