Welcome to 2009 — and to the era of First Amendment 3.0. First Amendment 1.0 was the time of origination, when the Founders debated, discussed and eventually created in 1791 a statement — the first 45 words in the Bill of Rights — that both declared and protected freedom of religion, speech and press, and the rights of assembly and petition.

First Amendment 2.0 was the time of definition, where the nation — through the means of the independent judiciary — defined those basic freedoms and in the process came to apply those protections to state statutes as well as federal laws.

Which brings us to 3.0 — a time of transformation.

At a pace and range not seen before, we are attempting to apply the principles of the First Amendment to an increasingly diverse society even as technology is redefining — at breakneck speed — what we mean by free expression and association.

The religious-liberty pronouncements of a society once largely defined as Protestant, Catholic and Jewish are being tested by world religions, by Wiccans and by those who profess no religious beliefs.

The means and meaning of free speech and free press are expanding as rapidly through the World Wide Web via social-networking sites, individual blogs, YouTube and a host of other high-tech means.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has bigger problems these days, but one of his signature policies recently suffered a serious First Amendment-based setback.

Just a day after rejecting state Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s attempt to remove the scandal-plagued governor from office, the Illinois Supreme Court on Dec. 18 ruled in Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich that pharmacists could pursue their claim that the state’s rule forcing them to dispense “Plan B” contraception violates their religious freedom.

On April 1, 2005, the Democratic governor issued a rule requiring Illinois pharmacists to dispense the contraception, which often is referred to as the “morning-after pill.” If taken within three days of sex, the pill reduces the chance of pregnancy by preventing ovulation or fertilization. If fertilization does occur, the drug is designed to prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. Some people therefore believe taking the pill is like an abortion and object to the drug on moral and religious grounds.

When issuing the Emergency Rule, Blagojevich publicly warned that violators faced significant penalties, including heavy fines and the loss of professional licenses. Two weeks later, the governor issued a press release stating he would “vigorously defend” the rule.

Just when I thought the Christmas wars couldn’t get more ridiculous or hostile, along comes the uproar over dueling holiday displays in the rotunda of Washington’s state Capitol.

First a holiday tree, then a menorah, followed by a crèche — and now a “winter solstice” placard declaring all of the above to be hokum.

The red-and-green solstice sign, placed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, describes religion as “myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Happy holidays to you, too.

The in-your-face display proved too much for the hundreds of Washingtonians who rallied to protest the state’s decision to give the anti-religion group space alongside the Nativity. After TV commentator Bill O’Reilly, the self-appointed defender of all things Christmas, weighed in, the brouhaha went national.

O’Reilly is outraged — outraged! He calls Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire a “weak and confused leader” who supports “political correctness gone wild.”

As the First Amendment marks its 217th anniversary on Dec. 15, here’s a quick look at where our basic freedoms stand — starting with a free press:

As 2008 ends, most newspapers are shrinking dramatically in size, staffing, circulation. At least a few sizable cities — including, at one point, Portland, Maine — have faced the possibility of having no local daily newspaper at all. Analysts predict similar changes in local and network broadcasting in 2009.

Ironically, this “free press” vanishing act is propelled in no small part by “free media” (as in “no charge”). Even as the Internet and new technology spur new and ever-more-varied methods of sending and receiving news and information, they are helping to decimate once-lucrative business models that supported what we now call mainstream media.

In one sense, this latest American media revolution also is about opportunity, and a return to its individual, locally owned, locally focused roots. In our early history the emphasis was on the opportunities of a free press, not its size or wealth. No longer was a king’s license required, a king’s voice the only one heard, or a king’s wrath to be feared.

Last time out, I addressed the fallout from the passage of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage in California. Both sides, I argued, need to rethink their strategy of harsh attacks before the clash escalates out of control.

On the anti-Prop 8 side, I singled out as “going too far” an ad depicting Mormon missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple, taking their wedding rings and tearing up their marriage certificate.

On the pro-Prop 8 side, I characterized some of the ads as “scare tactics,” especially those showing elementary schoolchildren learning about homosexuality.

Readers supporting each side, however, take issue with my criticism of their position — and think I’m letting the other side off the hook.

At first glance, the racy Web site “JuicyCampus.com” and a small, anti-gay group organized as the Westboro (Kan.) Baptist Church seem to have little in common.

JuicyCampus.com invites online postings from college students with the message that “this is the place to spill the juice about all the crazy stuff going on at your campus.” It claims that “it’s totally anonymous — no registration, login, or email verification required.” The result is an often-raucous mix of sexual, racial and social comments that some claim include defamatory or even dangerous remarks.

The Westboro group has gained notoriety for its in-person protests at military funerals while carrying signs with messages such as “God Hates Fags” and “God Hates America,” based on claims that America is being punished with the deaths of military personnel for accepting gay lifestyles in society.

What the two have in common is that both continue to test the limits of free speech — as recently as this month — and that authorities are working at creative ways to try to muffle or prosecute them.