The First Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.” Does this mean that freedom of speech cannot be prohibited in any way? Are there any reasonable arguments for limiting speech? In this paper, these questions will be examined along with a discussion of where the basic right of free speech originated. Today, society or government can attempt to regulate speech, but it cannot prevent it if a person is within the parameters of his or her constitutional rights. For centuries, civilizations have struggled on deciding what is morality acceptable speech and trying to place restrictions on what is considered inappropriate material.
There are certain types of speech that fall under that definition, howe... ... middle of paper ... ...an trust what the paper’s say because the state runs the media. The constitution provides that “no law shall be made abridging our right to freedom of speech. Therefore all laws supporting censorship are unconstitutional and should be banned as per the First Amendment. If we fail to ban censorship then we give up all of our rights we cease to be free. Works Cited Merriam-Webster.
Therefore, here I will explain the origination of freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech, as I had mentioned before, is included in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, which was adopted in 1791. From the start, freedom of speech only applied to the federal government, meaning that state government did not have to follow the laws of freedom of speech (Litz). This changed though after the Civil War ended in 1868. The fourteenth amendment was adopted and it stated that states may not “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law” (Roleff).
When the American colonies of England became a united nation, it was founded on the base that citizens would be liberated from any type of authoritarian oppression. Freedom of speech was the simplest method of tyranny that America’s Founding Fathers pursued to abolish and accordingly, the Bill of Rights incorporated freedom of speech into the very first amendment. Nevertheless, over the following two centuries, the American government has imposed censorship on ideas and practices that are considered potentially harmful to society. While there are numerous things that individuals should not see, including pornography and racist statements that can inspire citizens to act in an insubordinate conduct, the government must not censor materials, because by doing such, it infringes the Constitution, subdues information from the American people, and forces the population to conform to the ideals of those in power, as all literature in books and on the internet, are limited to things that are judged to be suitable by the government. By censoring material, the American government unmistakably infringes the American Constitution as it restricts civil rights by contradicting freedom of speech which is assured to American citizens.
Freedom of the press is the right to circulate opinions in print without censorship by the government. Americans enjoy freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states: 'Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
However, as with most constitutional freedoms, free of expression can be limited under certain circumstances. The First Amendment in the United States Constitution states ?Congress shall make no law?abridging the freedom of speech, or the press?? According to the Framers, the freedom to express individual views is vital to a free government and from their personal experience the freedom to write and publish also needs to be sheltered from government intervention. Every state constitution contains securities of free expression similar to the U.S. Constitution. An extra safeguard for the individual's right to free expression is stated in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.?
citizenship was universalized. The Amendment was designed to prohibit state governments from curtailing the rights of former slaves after the Civil War, however it has been used to grant all of the personal liberties and rights conveyed in the Bill of Rights. The Amendment gives definition to citizenship, requires due process and equal protection under the law ands reduces representation in Congress for states that deny voting rights to its citizens. In the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Taney ruled that United States citizenship belonged only to two classes of people; White people born in the United States as descendents of ?persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body, and those who were ?born outside the dominions of the united states: but had migrated there and had become naturalized citizens. Prior to the Constitution, each state regulated citizenship.
Defense of Marriage Act is Constitutional Introduction The United States Supreme court ruled in Windsor V. United States on June 26, 2013 that the section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that all loving couples that are married and committed to each other deserve legal respect and treatment, which is equal. This ruling shall have an effect on the married same-sex couples, being treated as any other married couple by the federal government. Each one shall be eligible for federal protections and responsibilities that are extended to all other married couples (Gacek, n.d.). President Obama together with the Department of Justice should have come to a conclusion that it is unconstitutional.
Is the message he conveyed protected under the First Amendment? Two and a half centuries ago, the nation’s forefathers drafted the Constitution of the United States. The aim of the Constitution is to protect the values that this nation was built upon. This document, arguably one of the nation’s most important, encompasses values such as democracy, equality, religious tolerance, as well as the freedom of speech. The free speech clause in the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (US Const., amend I).
Alright, now before people read this and try to go off and use this as an excuse to cuss out their teachers and parents, let me set the record straight: this paper is about what "Freedom of Speech" is all about. Appropriate use, respecting others freedom to not be harassed (this is a big one! ), and what is "appropriate" use of "Freedom of Speech", who REALLY has freedom of speech, and how it is to be used are all topics of debate which swirl about the subject. The Constitution itself 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". Now, it is true that here, the Constitution doesn't exactly set the rules and boundaries concerning this freedom.