Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversies of the first amendment
Controversies of the first amendment
First amendment in modern law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is often a lot of confusion when it comes to the First Amendment and what can or cannot be said. A lot of people think because the First Amendment protects against prosecution from the government for freedom of speech that they, can say or post online whatever they want. Freedom of speech may give people the right to say anything they want, but not always without consequences. The First Amendment does not fully protect people from being prosecuted for using or directing hate speech at a certain group or person, depending if they’re using “fighting words”. The First Amendment is not only there to protect someone’s right to freedom of speech. It also covers the freedom of “not” speaking, religion, art, or photos, (as long as they’re not child pornography), expressing oneself by what they wear. The First Amendment also covers freedom of press as long as it is not false or slander. To be clear, there is nothing in the US Constitution that separates freedom of speech and hate speech. There is no “clause” or article about hate speech. There are a few exceptions, but nothing that stops one person from speaking ill of another person or group. The First Amendment in the United States of America’s constitution protects the right of freedom of expression and freedom of religion without government interference. The …show more content…
Hate speech is often directed towards religious groups, homosexuals, minority groups etc. Hate speech is not violating the First Amendment unless it is directing people to harm that group of people. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), hate speech turned into “fighting words”, when the defendant told a group of boys “There goes a white boy; go get him!”. The First Amendment does not protect a person from prosecution that uses “fighting words”, because those words are likely to cause harm or violence from the person speaking
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.
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
Should the First Amendment stop protecting hate speech? In Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, he argues that hate speech should be protected as censorship would be against the First Amendment. He declares “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communications is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree is offensiveness against the potential value of communication.... if we were to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (Bok 67) What Bok is attempting to say is that we can technically declare anything as offensive. The idea of hate speech is varying on the opinion of a person rather than law.
In the first amendment, it is stated that all people have the Freedom of speech, religion,
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
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.
America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion recommends a practice that is contrary to public morals, such as polygamy, Congress may prohibit such a practice (Weidner, Daniel, 2002). The people of the United States also have the right to assemble peaceably under the First Amendment. The only restriction comes from the word peaceably. Assembly may not be prevented, as long as the proper authorities have reasonable assurance that the meeting will be peaceful (Weidner, Daniel, 2002).
The first amendment states every United States citizen has the right to press, petition, assembly freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Also, the amendment states the government is not allowed to make any law that breaks the rights of a citizen. In the case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), the argument was if the students’ first amendment was violated, but the public schools are not an appropriate place to express freedom of speech.
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.
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." Essentially, the First Amendment is supposed to give citizens the right to have free speech, free choice of religion, and the right to assemble peaceably. There are limitations to the First Amendment because every person interprets the rights differently. The Nazis most likely assumed that it was all right to hate people and say it in public, but the Jewish people disagreed, believing that hatred is unacceptable. Where is the line drawn when it comes to people being able to speak their minds? Justice Murphy, a member of the Supreme Court in 1942, had a say on what is considered allowable under the First Amendment and what crosses the line, and he stated,
"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." -First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment “protects five of the most basic liberties which include the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government to right wrong” (Silberdick Feinberg, 2015). Without the First Amendment then there wouldn’t of been full ratification and acceptance of new government. The interesting thing of the First Amendment is that it protects our ability to speak freely and openly however it doesn’t establish protection from the repercussions. Employers are able to exercise their restrictions on free speech and terminate their employees based on something they might state in the workplace. Employers have even exercised their right to terminate an employee something he/she expressed publically in their personal time. Business representatives, sports figures and celebrities have been denied work and or let go due to speaking their thoughts
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
Some people do not go by the First Amendment though. They think there should be limitations to what others say because words can hurt someone, be insulting, and misunderstood. I understand that people should not say words that can be disrespectful to others, but with the first amendment they have the right to speak freely. I understand that there should be a limit to what can be said over the internet and what people say in general but they cannot stop the thoughts of other people. People should be respectful and considerate about what they are saying and respect others and what they too have to say otherwise we would have no freedom of speech. In my opinion one of our most important rights.