First Amendment Bill Of Rights

The US Constitution is a document based on the US Federal government’s law and it presents legal checks and balance for the branches of government. The reasoning behind this system was to give an in depth set of values and guidelines for the American people. It is separated into three parts: The Articles, the Bill of Rights, and the changes and additions. The initial three articles are written to establish the responsibilities, powers, and balance each branch the federal government has.

In today’s world, hate speech can be found with ease; you can witness it over coffee, a celebrity you follow can share hateful tweets, or a public demonstration can get out of hand. With hate seemingly running rampant, we must question what actions to take in order to resolve this issue, and how to do so without undermining the First Amendment. Hate speech, despite some negative effects, does not need further legislation enacted, as it is already addressed by several laws in place. The eradication of hate speech requires a larger social change before we can introduce further legislation. While the First Amendment protects the fundamental right of free speech, there are exceptions to this right that are currently regulated.

Most Americans fought for their individual rights for decades before WW2. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to free speech meaning that the citizens of America are allowed to read, write, and share ideas freely and act in opposition. Walter Lippmann, social philosopher and writer’s, article, The Indispensable Opposition, appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in 1939 during WW2. Lippmann informs Americans in the article on the importance of everyone having the freedom of speech and opinion in society by separating what is believed and what is the truth by creating juxtaposition, incorporating strong repetition, and invoking powerful diction to set the tone.

Another limitation that does not protect citizens under the First Amendment is using fighting words that disturb the peace. In April 1940, Walter Chaplinsky was in downtown in Rochester, New Hampshire handing out literature and speaking publicly about religion. As Chaplinsky continued to talk, the crowd continued to grow, blocking the streets and disturbing the area. The public around him became upset with Chaplinsky as he began to denounce religion as “racket”.

The Bill of Rights Chapter 2 of the Constitution paves a way for the protection for the individual from the power of government and the individual other. The two fundamental human rights to be discussed are; the freedom of expression and the freedom of privacy. Every individual qualifies for the rights/freedoms that are listed in the constitution, contrary to the given freedoms there are limitations by law. For as much as we are all entitled to fundamental human rights, we are all ought to be responsible when exercising our own rights and think of the other or next person who has the same rights/freedoms. The right to freedom of expression is limited and conditioned to where one could possibly harm other people.

Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech. According to Lakoff, people who don’t experience hate speech, don't think

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Some people in today’s time would argue the first amendment is one of the most important listed in the Bill of Rights. Many forms of speech are protected by the first amendment that one wouldn’t think would be such as flag burning and “adult videos”. Over the years there have been many different court cases that have debated and fought the forms of speech that are protected. Many people in society treat speech differently and this is given in the United States because there are such diverse groups throughout the nation.

This is where the contradiction of the first amendment and laws abide one another. Is it freedom of speech or is it a

The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech could probably be considered the most powerful amendments of the Constitution. If we didn’t have this right, many of our ideas and beliefs would not be real today. All American citizens have the right to talk about what’s on their minds and say what they believe in. As Derek Bok mentions in his essay and unfortunately for people who disagree, With the Supreme Court’s rulings, the demonstration of these flags clearly falls within the protection of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment and that they can in no way be banned merely because they may seem offensive or may someone else’s feelings. “These rulings apply to all agencies of government, including public universities”.

When the founding fathers established the government of America, it is clear that they had the intent of establishing a government that valued principles such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and had a strong separation of powers. This is clear when we read the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. But does our current government value those same principles? I am going to argue that, no, it does not. If the intent of the founders was followed today, the government would be neither neglecting the First and Fourth Amendments, nor slowly degrading the separation of powers to the extent it has in the past 100 years.

First, there are those who argue that hate speech should be protected under the First Amendment, no matter the circumstance. Stakeholders for this position tend to include Conservative politicians, judges, and lawyers. This group stresses the idea that any individual rights that’s bestowed onto the people by the Constitution should never be tampered with. However, the opposing side are those who believe the First Amendment should not protect hate speech in any circumstances. Those involved in this side of the argument tend to be Democrats, Socialists, few Moderates, and college students.

Tierney Baumann Mr. Barnes Period 1 4/17/23 The First Amendment Hate speech has increased by 11.6% in the last 5 years. The first amendment allows hate speech. The first amendment is unfair, unjust and needs to change. The first amendment allows hate speech.

The purpose of the Second Amendment The way in which we conceive our laws regarding guns is based solely on one important document: The Bill of Rights. The focus of this paper shall be mainly on the second amendment and how it shapes gun laws. This document will become a very important issue of the argument for less gun-controlling laws and to prove how the government is straying away from the original amendment set forth by the founding fathers of the United States.

Is hate speech free speech and should it be protected under the First Amendment? Hate speech is speech that is used to verbally assault a single individual or a group of people based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. While some countries such as France, Canada, Chile, Germany, etc. have passed laws in an attempt to combat or minimize hate speech, the United States guarantees full protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, which was ratified in 1789 and adopted in 1791, essentially forbids Congress to create any laws curtailing the freedom of speech, freedom of press, or the right of citizens to peaceably assemble and seek assistance from the Government for a redress of grievances. Since the adoption of the First Amendment, Americans have consciously, continuously, and contentedly exercised their right.

The constitution was signed and sent out to the states in 1787, but was not ratified until 1788. During this time in the states the constitution caused a great deal of controversy. While some, the Federalists, believed that a constitution is exactly what was needed, others, the Anti-Federalists, felt that a constitution severely needed a bill of rights. There are many reasons a bill of rights was included in the constitution. Although it was not in the first copy, it was promised to be in the next one if nine states would ratify it.