Still, if a judge grants immunity testifying is mandatory but nothing said will be used against you. Free expression protects us from the government. Obviously the benefits outweigh the costs, but, the negative aspects are remedied through limitations on free expression so as not to interfere with a person?s life, liberty, and property. The right not to speak is protected through various Amendments in the Constitution most noticeably Amendment 1. It is through these guidelines that free expression has become fundamental law and establishes a truly free society.
That law made it illegal for anyone to advocate action against the government. This case was instrumental in how freedom of speech is looked at today. The Supreme Court decided that the, "...constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to ... ... middle of paper ... ...he end of the United State’s involvement in Vietnam. The government should have no interference in the absolute freedom of expression rights the American people have. These many things affected our right to freedom of speech in their own way, but always the American people have come out stronger because of it.
Freedom of speech is written in the constitution, which means its spirit should be protected and obeyed. However, the constitution just consists of short clauses; everyone can interpret it in their own way and perform with their own ideologies. In this perplexing situation, the government should supplement several details, and each leader himself should add his own opinion of it under the essential principle that the constitution cannot be concocted. Also, freedom of speech eliminated in specific situations is... ... middle of paper ... ...y the government. Please remember that the motivation of the colonists who came to America was to avoid the persecution from the dictators who deprived their deserved freedom and to find a peaceful land to live in.
The right of “freedom of speech” allows individuals to express themselves without any interference or any constraints from the government; thus, this gives the people the right to express their opinions without feeling any kind of fear from the government. In addition, the Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification if there would be any kind of interference, with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Thus, it is clear enough that the freedom of speech is protected under the US First Amendment; however, some of the courts can still find it hard to differentiate between what should go under that law and what should be considered as “crossing the line” of that law. Therefore, the Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit a particular speech that may; for example, cause a breach of peace or might cause violence. Furthermore, The First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech.
Because it “shall not be infringed,” the controversy should not even be present in society. However, some “Americans” believe it is necessary for citizens’ safety to have the federal government impose this right. Constitutionally, the federal government should have no business controlling the Second Amendment. In the article “Repeal the Second Amendment” the author states, “The Second Amendment impedes the power of the government to regulate the sale or possessio... ... middle of paper ... ...nt is not based on facts and statistics. The argument is based on feelings and the desire for an unattainable utopian society.
Such a case should be an example to organizations abroad. The underlying fact is, rejection does not equal unconstitutionality. As long as people are granted the rights that are outlined, not only in the first amendment and supported by the fourteenth amendment as well, in the Bill of Rights. Because there are sure to be problems that will arise concerning the first amendment, especially concerning speech and religion, cases like these will never suffice to solve civil liberty issues. What government must do as they did in this case is to make sure the rulings are in line with the constitution, and rule in accordance to that which is constitutionally sound and not emotionally befitting.
Simultaneously, all leaders were chosen by the people to make sure the freedom of the citizens instead of allowing anarchy caused by true freedom. Liberty differs from freedom which points out that there are boundaries, obligations, restrictions, and a need to interact with others. Therefore, it's the government that is chargeable for securing the blessings of liberty. In order to secure these blessings firm rules should be created and so to maintain this liberty, these boundaries should be enforced; each of that are the government's duties. The Amendments emphasize on the given subjects: Amendment I Congress might make no law regarding a stronghold of religion, or restricting the free practice thereof; or abbreviating the opportunity of discourse, or of the press; or the right of the individuals quietly to gather, and to appeal to the Government for a change of grievances.
Privacy assures our basic business from government control. The word privacy does not exist in the Constitution. There are no where one could find the words privacy in the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers thought it a fundamental value that America has the right to be protected. Understanding the intention of the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to privacy from the original context was given to them.
Thus, as a long established and highly empowered legal doctrine, it must ultimately be respected by the government to the fullest extent. The First Amendment does not state, nor does it imply, that only specific forms of speech which are morally just shall be free of governmental interference, while other forms believed to be offensive to social morality, such as pornography or racist films, shall not enjoy such a privilege. If that were to be the actual case, “freedom of speech,” which has long been revered by our nation as one of the fundamental liberties of American history, would further cease to exist. All that would have to be proven to restrict speech would be that the message being expressed contains the slightest mention of morally offensive content. Fortunately, however, the freedom of speech clause grants people the power to convey their opinions in the manner which they deem fit.
So that mostly means that Congress cannot make any law stating to what you can say, your religion, and with the press. The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms. So that means that “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”. Which means that people can bear arms to protect themselves. The third amendment is protection from quartering of troops.