# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Rachel completely. How you look shouldn't determine what position you obtain as a job.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Emily W that harm is more then just physical, its emotional as well

I agree with Natalie that we should focus more on boarder control and having a good way to make people who want to be citizens become citizens

I disagree with Nicks opinion (about the raspberries) that the rights of these workers who aren´t citizens are violated because even though they are not US Citizens, they still should have the same rights that we have.

I think that people should be allowed to choose who rents their homes, but they should consider all applicants completely and equally while making your decision

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Nick, that hate speech, as wrong as it is, is protected under the first amendment. As long as harm is not delivered to anyone, it should be protected from censorship of the government.

I don't think nationalizing 11 million is the greatest idea, because it would be a cluster. Some rights should be limited, because they are not citizens. Like the minimum wage.

I think maybe there should be a grading system for the AirBNB. And just have a sort of rewards system.

# data[].attributes.body
I would have to agree with Ammons and argue with Nick that even non-citizens, that are living and working in the US still have the same rights and liberties that everyone who are citizens do.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what Nick was saying, but I also think that in terms of hate speech being allowed, I would allow people to say what they want, but also allow the police to turn a blind eye a bit to people retaliating against whoever said the hate speech.

I agree with Natalie, I would focus more on stopping illegal immigration from happening and then just let the illegal immigrants that are already here stay unless they start committing a bunch of crimes or something.

I agree with Nick in that rights should apply to citizens of the United States and some rights should be limited to non-citizens since there does not seem to be a point in being a citizen if everyone is given the same rights regardless of their citizenship status.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Emily and Rachel that with speech, there is an emotional aspect as well, which can be harder to categorize into one specific aspect of hate speech

I also agree that some people are just rude and no matter if they say something offensive to your face or anonymously online, people can be impacted by it but there is no way to regulate this or define the degree  of what extent of hate speech is essentially "okay".

I do not agree with Nick that the non-citizens working in the US should not receive the basic civil liberties or rights granted in the constitution. I personally feel that since these people are the laborers in the country and help run so many industries, they should be granted the same basic rights granted to legal citizens.

People should be allowed to choose who to rent their homes to, but look through the applicant's complete info and not make a big discrimination based on race, culture, gender, etc. I think that websites like Airbnb should abolish profile pictures entirely and only have the important information that would be required for a host to make a decision.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Natalie that many people who are being deported are not criminals but people who just want a better life in American.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Rachel, Hate speech can be taken very personally by people so it can be taken a lot further than it should be because of Emotional Reasons

I agree with Davin. I do think overtime all the people here should become citizens just not all at once. But with making so many people citizens it would cause a need for more resources we don't have and lots of paperwork needed.

# data[].attributes.body
Going off what Jack ended with, there are various levels in which hate speech might be considered okay. For example, marches. When the KKK groups were  marching down Charleston last year, they were met and even protected by law enforcement much more peacefully than any Black Lives Matter protest around the country. So loopholes matter, as well as the perceptions of people.

Going off what Nick said, I think illegal immigrants who are here should still be entitled to those first amendment rights, like any other human being. Stripping them from these rights would only cause them to be treated more like indentured servants and property and also further dehumanization in the eyes of their employers, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Nick and Chloe, people are going to have unpopular opinions and although their words might hurt someone's feelings, they still have freedom of speech. Some people are just rude and that can't be protected by the 1st Amendment.
I think it's unfortunate that there is hate speech and bullying through words and social media, however it would be extremely difficult to regulate hate speech through the amendments - but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to try and prevent bullying and hate speech.

# data[].attributes.headline
I agree with Sydney, speech has the most impactful role, because this gives the right for all citizens to be able to voice their thoughts and be Able to have the power that sets the foundation for a efficient democracy. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I agree with Sydney, speech has the most impactful role, because this gives the right for all citizens to be able to voice their thoughts and be Able to have the power that sets the foundation for a efficient democracy. 

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Melanie and Wendy. I think that people should have enough common sense to not wear something that may be offensive.

I agree with Katie, without Freedom of Speech, we wouldn't have the others or the others would be useless.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Katie that freedom of speech is important to voice their public opinion and gives people a chance to speak what they believe. And without the freedom of speech we wouldn´t have the others.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Melanie that dress code doesn't really fit under the 1st amendment unless it's for religious reasons.
To answer Jazlin, I think if we didn't have freedom of speech as an amendment there would still be freedom of speech because the US is built around having freedoms.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Jadon

I don't think that the amendments need to be in any particular order. As long as they are there and everyone knows their rights and liberties then its fine.

Jack makes a good point. All of our news and awareness comes from the media. Without freedom of the press, we wouldn't have access to the governments actions and decisions.

I think religion is fine where it is inside the first amendment.

To answer Jack, hate speech is harmful in my opinion. With that being said, censoring it and arresting someone for it is unconstitutional and a little extra. However, I also believe that ending hate speech would be a big step in ending discrimination as well.

# data[].attributes.body
I think they're shouldn't be strict dress codes that require matching clothing at schools. Although at our school we have a dress code that just requires you to dress appropriately and not wear offensive clothing that could offend or harm someone. I believe this is a lot more realistic and still allows us to express ourselves through our clothing choices.

I think the order is good the way it is because religion should be a decision. Its really important to allow us to practice the religion that we choose. Without this right people would either abandon their religions or would practice their religion against the law. This would cause many problems for our country.

# data[].attributes.body
Dress code doesn't fit in any of the 5 like Melanie explained. For the government to regulate it wouldn't be ideal.

What Ammons said about Press as more important than speech is something I hadn't thought about yet, but she makes a good point. Yes speech is tied to all of them but without press your voice couldn't be here as significantly as it would without.

If we didn't have the first amendment I do believe and agree with Jack on how it would eventually come in a way to protect and serve as roll in our government.

# data[].attributes.body
dress code should remain under district regulation, not government

# data[].attributes.body
I think the freedom of speech supplements the freedom of religion because even if people are free to believe whatever they wish, they are not necessarily free to practice and express those beliefs without the freedom of speech.

Because of the first amendment's protection of speech I do not think the Trump administration's discrimination can be restricted but that does not change what it is. Discrimination is stopped when it turns into action so there may be restriction if a wall were to be built or other measures taken.

# data[].attributes.body
To answer Wendy's question, I think personally speech should be first. Our right to criticize and speak our mind about politics and government is what sets us most apart form other countries. Without speech I feel like the other rights wouldn''t be in practice.

To answer Syd's question, I think about Japanese Internment Camps, or the way Muslims were treated after 9/11. I feel like we can't protect ourselves by ostracizing, discriminating, and instilling fear of a specific group of people.