The author's primary focus in this article is to illustrate and create awareness for the evolution of the First Amendment. The first amendment has been defined over the years as protecting Americans basic liberties, that being the freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. The author introduces the factors that ultimately altered the definition of the amendment. The people’s misinterpretation of the amendment was the primarily the factor developing the evolution of the First Amendment.
Censorship of The First Amendment This paper will discuss how censorship denies citizens of the United States our full rights as delineated in the First Amendment. It will outline how and why the first amendment was created and included in the Constitution of the United States of America. This paper will also define censorship, discuss a select few legal cases surrounding freedom of speech and censorship as well as provide national and local examples of censorship.
This case is also regularly cited in other Supreme Court cases and is often a deciding factor. It has been used in cases like Konigsberg v. State Bar “That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . . " But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil.
People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.
Smolla writes about the First Amendment in his essay, "Speech Overview". He discusses what freedom of speech is, why Americans hold the First Amendment in such high regard, and how it can be conflicting to many American's "social instincts". The main idea that Smolla is arguing is that Americans embrace freedom of speech and individuality, even though it may cause conflict. He recognizes that some limitations must exist, but the freedom to express our thoughts is the American way. Smolla points out that many controversial items are approved due to the first amendment, even though they conflict with patriotism.
The “War of Words” article states “Not all cases are so hard to decide since some parts of the constitution are quite specific. But many of the Constitution’s key provisions- like “freedom of speech” are more abstract.” This explains that as our world changes the interpretation will change. In the case “Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition” the interpretation is one way but that could be different from today’s interpretation
It simply says “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech” ("First Amendment (ratified 1791”). Nowhere in the Amendment does it specify what kind of speech is protected. In addition, United State also violated its citizen’s right by creating a law (The Federal Obscenity Statute) to limit the speech of the people, which is an
In the “Bethel School District v. Fraser” case, Fraser believed that the school violated his first amendment “freedom of speech” rights. Fraser gave a speech with some inappropriate content in it and the school gave him a three day suspension because two teachers warned him before he gave the speech. Fraser took it to court and the justices said they would shorten the suspension and let him have his right to speak at graduation because the school was taking away his freedom of speech.
During the twentieth century, the United States emerged as a persistent and powerful actor on the world stage. And at key moments of worldwide involvement the encounter with a foreign "other" subtly affected the meaning of freedom in the United States. Today, when asked to define their rights as citizens, Americans instinctively turn to the privileges enumerated in the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, the press, and religion, for example. But for many decades after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, the social and legal defenses of free expression were extremely fragile in the United States. A broad rhetorical commitment to this ideal coexisted with stringent restrictions on speech deemed radical or
The first amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens’ rights to; freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, religious freedom, the right to petition the government, and the right to free speech. The Constitution itself asserts: “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” Interpreting the first amendment has always been a subject for debate, and many citizens of the United States are unaware of what is actually protected by the first amendment, specifically in regards to freedom of speech. This lack
Although the first amendment guarantee’s freedom of speech, the guarantee is not absolute. There should be an expectation to the first amendment. Another aspect of freedom of speech is expressive conduct (such as flag burning). The supreme court has grappled with whether laws banning expressive conduct are permissible under the first amendment. This court is in favor of Texas because, is it not right to burn a flag, with military people died to protect our flag, it is a symbol of freedom, and it will cause more problems in the world.
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.
The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.
As human beings, we are all born with an entitlement of freedom of speech or synonymously known as freedom of expression as it is a basic human right. It is stated in the Federal Constitution and it is important for us human beings to protect our rights to freedom of speech and expression as it is the backbone for a democratic society. Having the right to express oneself freely without any restrictions is an essential part of what it means to be a free human being. Article 10 in the Federal Constitution states that; (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations.