There isn't much in the way of gray area with regard to protected forms of speech. What is prohibited is very clearly spelled out and case law is well developed to the point that very little new case law is coming out that affects the first amendment. As I am sure you know, case law is the ongoing interpretation of the constitution, state, and local laws that the courts use to guide their future actions and decisions. In other words, case law is a record of interpretation that is used by the courts until they have reason to deviate from that, typically new and unique circumstances that have not been encountered previously.

Paraphrasing, forms of speech and expression that are not protected include those that would incite lawless action, real threats, and things that are "obsecene" among others. Case law has carefully and fairly completely defined each of these things and there are standards and/or tests in each case. For example, obscenity: "The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Miller V California.

Fortunately for all of us we have these standards as terms like "really disgusting" are entirely subjective.





There are no loop holes in the application of the 4th amendment in fact there is probably more case law for this amendment than any other. It is a very hot topic for obvious reasons. Rather than loop holes, there are extremely well developed policies and procedures that government must follow to ensure that the rights of the people are not violated. When government fails to adhere to these standards, policies, and procedures, their work, even if it is for the purpose of convicting the guilty, must be thrown out. This has to be the case as the alternative is to not hold government (law enforcement) to sharp standards and in the process open the door for significant abuses of power, and infringement upon rights, and a loss of objectivity and reason in the system. As long as everything is done "correctly" there are no loop holes and the guilty will be convicted as long as their guilt can be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" and searches and seizures will be carried out with "probable cause."





Regarding the 2nd, I am playing the devils advocate to some degree here. I for one am entirely glad that we have adopted a liberal interpretation and I do think arming ourselves for the purpose of defending ourselves and others is a right we should all have as long as we are responsible with it.

These days we have obviously replaced the need for a militia with well developed state, local, and federal law enforcement and military. It was different times back then.