Ryann k. England Mr. Dyer Ap Government October 9, 2016 The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedoms of speech, or of the press”. The freedoms of speech and of press are quintessential American rights, afford to it’s citizens through the ratification of the first amendment on December 15, 1791. These rights protect the voices of minority's, inform citizens, preserve the truth and create a watchdog for government corruption. Although these rights are toted in high esteem by most Americans, most are unaware these freedoms are not absolute and poses limitations. Such limitations sometimes include speech that criticizes the government. Throughout American history freedom of expression seem to be treated …show more content…
Fighting words is a form of speech that is likely to insight immediate violence and are not protected. A case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) further explained this form of speech and what words are and are not protected. In this case the defendant, Chaplinsky, was not speaking with the purpose of inciting violence and starting a fight, rather he spewed insults. The court ruled that some words are so insulting that they were more than likely to result in a fight. This case further defined fighting words by including aggravating insults which are not protected by the first …show more content…
U.S. future abolished the governments power of prior restraint. In this case the court needed to decide whether or not the New York Times could print stolen government documents know as the Pentagon Papers. These papers proved that the governments resoning for getting involved in Vietnam was different from what it had publicly portrayed the government tried to stop the publication because doing so would inhibit the war effort, decrease government trust and “irreparably harmed Americas ability to defend itself”. The court ruled in favor of the New York Times and again struck down prior
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad. There are many problems regarding America’s very unrestrictive gun laws at present, whether it’s the fact that there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun, or the fact that individuals don’t
As Holmes had stated there are other forms that are not protected which are known as lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and insulting words. The case Chaplinsky v New Hampshire in 1942 determined that fighting words and other forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky had argued that the New Hampshire law violated his Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from infringing on citizens’ fundamental freedoms and as a result, kept him from exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech. While states are not allowed to inhibit expression of ideas, the Court did not convict him for the expression of his ideas but because his words (calling religion a ‘racket’ and a city marshal ‘damned racketeer’ and ‘damned fascist’)
Fighting words must: (1) have an addressee; (2) contain personally abusive language, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction when addressed to ordinary individuals; and (3) be likely to incite violent reaction in the addressee, given the context. In re Nickolas S., 245 P.3d 446 (Ariz. 2011). Courts have generally limited fighting words to face-to-face interactions. Citizen Publ’g Co. v. Miller, 115 P.3d 107 (Ariz. 2005). Mullen addressed the Kidds in his speech by naming Raymond directly and “tagging” him on social media.
In the late 1700’s, James Madison wrote the first Ten Amendments that are listed in the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights were written to ensure American citizens that they have freedoms and rights that the government can 't infringe. Out of the Ten Amendments, I believe that the First and Eighth Amendment are the most significant. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and for people to assemble peaceably.
The first amendment main purpose is to limit the power of the congress. It restricts them. The same limit however does not apply to us. We are allowed to express yourself without interference or constraint by the government but the government can limit both the content of speech and the ability to engage in speech as long as the government has a “substantial justification.”
The fighting words category also states that a protesters are not allowed to partake in name calling or use derogatory terms toward the directed audience. This was put in place after Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 1942. This trail took place because the actions of Chaplinsky. Chaplinsky Was passing out pamphlets when the city marshal confronted him. Chaplinsky said some choice words
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 Importance of the 1st Amendment In 1787 our founding fathers assembled the constitution of the United States of America. Of this which contains the most important document to the American citizen, the Bill of rights. The first Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” These freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights are often known as freedom of expression. These rights are most important to a truly free society. The first amendment provides us with new ideas and dismisses the fear of punishment
The Second Amendment The Second Amendment has been heavily debated for years. This in itself is humorous considering how easily it became an Amendment. When it was written, people gave it little thought, as it was considered normal; “the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right … anymore than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech … ” (Lund).
America IS the first amendment: what it was founded on, what it was built upon, and the ideas that our country has always and continues to stand for. The first amendment- freedom of religion, speech, press, to assemble, and petition the Government- is about any individual having the power to voice their ideas and opinions no matter what. Peaceful resistance to laws is not only condoned by the first amendment, but encouraged. The founders of the United States who penned the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, etc. did everything in their power through these documents to prevent the tyranny and abuse of government. Through these documents, the founders of America established that a true democracy is defined by the freedom of its constituents to
The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. The Second Amendment states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The United States didn’t invent freedom. The Greeks and Romans had their democratic principles and the British had their Magna Carta before we were a nation. We are not even considered the “most free” nation in the world. In fact, we were ranked 20th in the world earlier this year by the Cato Institute in the “human freedom index.”
In the Constitution Freedom of the press protects the right to obtain and publish information or opinions without government censorship or fear of punishment. One regulation I thknk the government should have on freedom of press is if an article is deemed as slander or violates a federal law than I think the government should be in control. However, if we allow government to control this freedom completely than how would we know if the news was legitimate or just what the government wants us to hear. In totalitarian regimes to create rule, the government inevitably controls the information to which the public can access. This is a huge problem to because it allows the government to determine what is worthy of the news.
The first stating “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of