Introduction Since the first freedom of speech case was brought to the Supreme Court in 1919, the debate over whether it is an absolute or qualified right has persisted. As the Court attempts to capture the meaning of the First Amendment and its free speech clause, they create many tests and qualifications for the protection of the First Amendment. Many of the discussions revolving around free speech exceptions concern, at least in part, hateful and offensive speech. The paradox that plagues this argument is that speech cannot be qualified without encroaching on some rights, yet speech cannot be absolute without threatening the peace that rights are intended to protect. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Cohen v. California, and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, among others, highlight the major exceptions that the Court considers in an offensive speech case. Two of the above three cases granted exceptions to the protection of free speech, allowing regulatory statutes to be upheld. On the other hand, Snyder v. Phelps, Virginia v. Black, and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, represent the Court’s opinion regarding hate speech which allowed for zero exceptions to the First Amendment. Support for the argument that free speech should be an absolute right can be easily found in the either the slippery-slope argument or the heckler’s veto, among others. These two notions that exceptions will undoubtedly lead to the absence of meaningful free speech are not uncommon nor are they improbable. Matsuda and Lawrence (1993), state that the theory that the freedom of speech is an absolute right is “ahistorical and acontextual” (p. 134). However, the necessity for an absolute interpretation of the freedom of speech is epitomized through th... ... middle of paper ... ...his indecent monologue as either obscene or offensive speech. The monologue inherently meets the requirements of being “speech” under the First Amendment. Therefore, the only question that remains is whether or not the First Amendment grants the FCC the authority to punish Pacifica for broadcasting the indecent content. While the monologue does not fall under any of the three main determined exemptions of the First Amendment, the Court still allows the regulation because of the context and content of the speech. The judgement of context and content of the speech comes from time, place, and manner restrictions that are often placed on speech of this kind. According to the majority opinion, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it “will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent” (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978, p. 745).
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
who can speak and what they can say, the first Amendment rights of all of us are
What can be said and cannot be said? Does this amendment include spoken word only or does it include action also? What, if any, limits should be put to this amendment? As long as the government has existed, people have battled over censorship.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
Herbeck, Tedford (2007). Boston College: Freedom of Speech in the United States (fifth edition) Cohen vs. California 403 U.S. 15 Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
What does freedom really mean? Many people today are aware that they have a right to freedom, but do not know what that really means. Religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are the five freedoms that the First Amendment specifically speaks about. Let’s take a look at the definition of each of the five freedoms, what the government says about our freedom, how it is acted out and portrayed in America, and a few case studies involving the different aspects of the First Amendment.
First Amendment protections were upheld in the case of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (Reno, 1997). The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was found to violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. In appealing the CDA, appellees were hoping that the court would determine that the CDA violated both First and Fifth Amendment rights. While the court agreed that the CDA violated First Amendment rights, they did not rule on the issue of Fifth Amendment rights violations. Both constitutional and criminal issues were being addressed in this appeal.
The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is often considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it guarantees the citizens of United States the essential personal freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. Thanks to the rights granted by the First Amendment, Americans are able to live in a country where they can freely express themselves, speak their mind, pray without interference, protest in peace and where their opinions are taken into consideration, which is something not many other nationalities have the fortune of saying. The Founding Fathers were the framers of the Constitution of the U.S., and the responsible for the elaboration of the First Amendment. The majority of the Founding Fathers were enlightenment thinkers who were in love with liberty, and thought that basic political rights were inevitable for man’s nature. After having experienced the tyranny from their mother countries, the Founding Fathers carefully constructed the Constitution of the United States in a way where tyranny was avoided and a government for the people, by the people and of the people was developed, which is clearly reflected in the Constitution. At the time of inception of the United States, the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment in order to ensure that the government would not interfere with Americans’ basic civil rights. The rights outlined on the First Amendment were considered so important by these leaders that many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United Sates until there was a conjecture of amendments that would protect individual rights in the future.
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (Downs 7).
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
Challenges to hate crime laws have been based on the First Amendment of the Constitution the right to free speech. The first major Supreme Court ruling on this issue was R. A. V. v. City...
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...