Can you really define the First Amendment?

The First Amendment is ambiguous and for this it isn’t even made clear by those that are appointed to interpret it. Anthony Lewis has been writing about the justice system and the press for over 40 years, and in his book “Freedom for the Thought We Hate” he argued that the First Amendment is poorly understood and for much of its history has been poorly protected by the courts. Part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” I think this lack of specificity makes the First Amendment powerful yet unreliable at times. It is powerful because it can last and make sense for means of interpretation to every generation in every time period. It is unreliable because of the “intentional” vagueness and the amount of mistakes that humans make interpreting the legality in accordance with this amendment. This is why Lewis feels that this poorly understood amendment has been poorly protected. It makes sense because everyone throughout history that stood up for free speech were punished until 1931 as Lewis stated. People of this nation had bad opinions about the president at the time and were placed in prison. This was because of Sedition Acts that were put into action and the acts are a direct violation of the freedom of speech but judges at the time were allowing people to be placed in jail. As expressed in Lessig, just like filtering is occuring today in cyberspace, Americans of the past were forced to silence of filtered thoughts of war and presidential decisions and it shows that history continues to repat itself event to this day. Therefore the First Amendment is still poorly protected.