The year is 1787. The Declaration of Independence was issued a decade ago, and with its victory in the Revolutionary War — America is now a free country. The U.S. Constitution has just been signed and ratified, but there is still unrest in the colonies. The Framers — the sub-group of the Founding Fathers who acted as delegates to the Federal Convention — are soon wrestling with how to best handle proposed amendments to their document and the ideological split between Federalists and anti-Federalists.

Two years later, a primitive form of what would become the Bill of Rights is proposed by James Madison. It is ratified and put into effect on Dec. 15, 1791, but not without confrontation. For example, historical icon and first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton argued against a bill of rights, suggesting that “I … affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

To clarify Hamilton’s now-archaic language, he is concerned that by implementing the Bill of Rights, an American citizen’s rights would be limited to those provided in said bill and no further. Essentially, that by declaring only certain freedoms and not others, we would actually be limiting America’s proud definition as a free country.

Despite the adoption of the Ninth Amendment — which specifically addresses such concerns — and the eventual ratification of the entire bill, debate over the individual rights continues into the 20th century.

It’s a beautiful summer day, and I’m 10 years old. My cousins and I argue about a great many things. The typical response from both of them is to blare the proclamation, “I can do whatever I want! It’s a free country!” spittle flying from their lips and dribbling down their chins.

It’s years later: high school. I go to see an anticipated comedy at the local theater. Much to my dismay, one of my fellow schoolmates is also in attendance. The student is brash, rude, ignorant and filthy. As the previews flicker on the screen, everyone in the theater can be heard as they turn to their friends and murmur their sentiments on whether the upcoming film will be worth their time. One group of such people is a small collection of blacks, who sit three rows behind the schoolmate. From my seat, I watch in stunned horror as he turns to the group behind him with disgust plastered on his face.

“I hate it when you niggers talk during movies,” he says. “You wanna keep it down?” Everyone within earshot grows quiet. “What?” the schoolmate taunts. “I got my rights, I can say whatever I want! It’s a free country.”

Now, it’s April 8, 2010. First Amendment Day. And all I want to say is how much I hate the First Amendment. Yes, you read that right.

I hate the First Amendment.

Or rather, to be more clear, I hate what it’s become. I hate that the First Amendment is no longer a guiding principle people uphold as a pillar of our society, but instead acts as a form of cruel and unusual punishment due in large part simply to being misunderstood. I hate that some look to the First Amendment, not in hopes of keeping an informed citizenry or of making contributions to society, but in hopes of finding an excuse, in hopes of escaping responsibility through a simplistic definition that fits our pre-conceived worldview, as though we were children.

The Founding Fathers and the documents that they authored have given us immense freedom, and I don’t disagree with their intentions. I don’t even disagree with the freedoms as they’re written. What I have a problem with is when people ignore the responsibilities attached to those freedoms.

As the saying goes, “freedom isn’t free,” and free speech is no exception. The First Amendment is not absolute, and that applies to everyone on any side of the political, religious, social, etc. aisles. Obscenity; prior restraint; defamation; libel; time, place and manner restrictions; commercial speech; all of these contain within their legal definitions restrictions that can be imposed on so-called “free speech.” Nowhere do my beliefs – nor does the law – state that a restriction applies based on whether or not you agree with me – or a lawmaker. You are free to hold your opinion and you are free to express it. But you also have a duty to express it ethically and respectfully.

The First Amendment – and indeed, the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution – has given you a great deal of rights. What I want you to recognize is that it has also given you a great burden of responsibility. Due to our laws and technology – in 2009 alone, the number of people in North America using the Internet was nearly 350 million, which is just over a third of the continent’s population – moreso than many individuals across the world, you have the power to be heard. Just make sure that what you’re saying is worth listening to.

And now that I’ve said my piece, it’s your turn. Speak up and speak out, but do so with an air of mutual respect. It may be a free country, but it’s also a great one tackling great responsibility. Citizens should act likewise.

Sophie Prell is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Alta.