In the aftermath of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on America, and the resulting War on Terrorism by the United States, what reasonable and legal limitations should their be on the First Amendment?

None.

Why not? This has happend already by the Patriot Act of 2001, or would you not agree?

The Patriot Act passed Congress at a time the U.S. was panicked and determined to prevent further terrorist attacks. Many people claim it's violated our right to privacy as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.

Our founding fathers did not want the government interfering in the lives of citizens and were adamant about wanting people's freedom of speech preserved. The Patriot Act violates the Bill of Rights.

For more information see these sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html

When considering the limitations on the First Amendment in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the War on Terrorism, it is important to balance the need for national security with the preservation of individual rights and freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees several essential freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to petition the government. While it is crucial to maintain these rights, certain reasonable and legal limitations can be considered in certain circumstances. Here are some factors and limitations that could be taken into account:

1. Incitement to violence: The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites immediate violence or poses a clear and present danger to public safety. This limitation has been established by the Supreme Court to prevent harm or potential harm to individuals or society as a whole.

2. National security concerns: In cases where speech or communication threatens national security, the government may impose limitations. For example, the dissemination of classified information or the support and promotion of terrorist organizations might justify restrictions in order to safeguard the country.

3. Hate speech and discrimination: While hate speech is generally protected under the First Amendment, there are limitations when it incites violence or targets specific groups based on race, religion, nationality, or other protected characteristics. These limitations are in place to prevent the escalation of hostilities or the marginalization of individuals and communities.

4. Time, place, and manner restrictions: The government can impose reasonable regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of speech to ensure public safety, order, and the fair distribution of resources. For instance, restrictions on protests near sensitive locations or limitations on amplified sound during specific hours.

5. Clear and present danger test: The Supreme Court has recognized the "clear and present danger" test, which focuses on whether speech presents a clear and immediate danger that can be reasonably anticipated. If so, limitations can be imposed to safeguard public safety and national security.

It's worth noting that any limitations on the First Amendment should be carefully balanced and subject to robust judicial scrutiny to prevent potential abuses of power. Striking the right balance between protecting national security and preserving individual rights is an ongoing challenge that requires prudence, transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles.