First Amendment Limitations

In a democracy, freedom of speech and the press must be accorded great respect, but other values such as national security, the protection of reputation or public safety sometimes conflict with First Amendment guarantees. Discuss the approaches that have been used by the Supreme Court to define the limits on expression. How have these approaches been applied in specific cases?

Several restrictions have been formulated on expression. The first approach used by the Supreme Court is the Clear and Present Danger. It is a test under the Espionage Act in 1919. “Under that test, expression may be restricted if it would cause a dangerous condition, actual or imminent, that Congress has the power to prevent” (Sidlow & Henschen, 83). The second one is

It has been uphold by the Supreme Court in many ways. In 1947, the New Jersey has passed a law that allowed the state to pay for the students’ bus transportation who attended parochial schools. Although the Court stipulated that no tax could be collected to support religious activities, it still upheld the law of New Jersey because the court believed that the state didn’t help the church directly but for the benefit of students. Besides, the Court opposed the practice that the Regent asked the schools to let students prayer in classroom. Because “no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government” (Sidlow & Henschen, 78). It also ruled against the daily one-minute period of silence because the court considered this activity appeared to support religion. In addition, the Court regarded the behavior of “forbidding the teaching of evolution on the schools are unconstitutional” (Sidlow & Henschen, 79). Overall, I think the Court opposed the conduct of imposing religious ideas on students. It supported the practice that could benefit the students without involving in religious activities

Arizon was that the Court needed to decide when and how the suspects could have constitutional rights. There were so many problems in regard to this issue, for example, should the suspects keep silence all the time or just during the trial? In order to clarify these questions, the the Supreme Court released the decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warnings are established as followings: Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed (Sidlow & Henschen,