NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The First Amendment The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America 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 of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (Funk &# 038; Wagnalls 162). The First Amendment to the Constitution ensures the freedom of religion, the press, and speech, or stated basically, the freedom of expression the people of the United States have. The freedom of speech is not entirely absolute within itself. From the ratification of the Constitution, the First Amendment has been challenged many times over and the verdicts of the cases challenging the amendment have varied. The fact is that the freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment have been shortened for the protection of the people, but it still remains that the United States guarantees the most freedom when it comes to speech and expression. A republican form of government is when the people have the freedom of expression in order to criticize a government or else the government could become an autocracy.
This shows how the freedom of expression is involved in government. Alexander Meiklejohn, a strong supporter of that idea wrote: [The] Constitution [ordains] that all authority to exercise control, to determine common action, belongs to We, the People. [Under this system free men are governed] by themselves. [What, ] then, does the First Amendment forbid? [The] town meeting suggests an answer. The meeting is called to discuss and, on the basis of such discussion, to decide matter of public policy. [The] voters, therefore, must be made as wise as possible. [And] this, in turn, requires that so far as time allows, all facts and interests relevant to the problem shall be fully and fairly presented to the meeting [so] that all the alternative lines of action can be wisely measured in relation to one another The First Amendment, then, is not the guardian of unregulated talkativeness. It does not require that, on every occasion, every citizen shall take part in public debate. [Rather, ] the vital point, as stated negatively, is that no suggestion of policy shall be denied a hearing because it is on one side of the issue rather than another. [Citizens] may not be barred [from speaking] because their views are thought to be false or dangerous. [The] reason for this equality of status in the field of ideas lied deep in the very foundation of the self governing process. When men govern themselves it is they and no one else who must pass judgment upon unwisdom and unfairness and danger. [Thus, ] the unlimited guarantee, of the freedom of public discussion, which is given by the First Amendment, [protects the speech] of a citizen who is planning for the general welfare (Meiklejohn 15 - 27). The First Amendment can be used as a check against an unjust government.
If the people can talk freely about their government, they can tell each other of any injustices there may be. Thus it is a sort of check up on a government. It in turn will keep corruption at a minimum and guarantees a better government. The Judicial Court has put certain restrictions on the freedom of speech over the years.
These restrictions occur in two ways. One is on the basis of content and the other is on the basis of how it is being expressed. Many court cases over the years show how this is true. A case that dealt on the basis of content was Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. It stated that there are some classes of speech that are limited.
They are the lewd, the obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting words. When spoken they encourage fighting and so is a disturbance of peace (Stone, Seidman 2 nd ed. ). The words are not necessary for the passing of ideas. In the end, the courts decision was that certain forms of language are not proper for some situations.
Another case is New York Times vs. Sullivan in 1964. L. B. Sullivan was one of the three elected Commissioners of the city of Montgomery, Alabama. He presented a civil libel action against the New York Times.
Sullivan said that he had been libeled by a full page article. The Alabama state court found that few of the facts to be fully true and also found that the statement was libelous and thus they rewarded Sullivan five hundred thousand dollars. However the Supreme court reversed the verdict. The reason for this was because when dealing with the corruptions of government, the people have a right to speak out to put a stop to them (Stone, Seidman 2 nd ed. ).
This court case relates to the First Amendment in that the government has no power to do decide on seditious libel, especially when dealing with the corruption of a government. A famous trial based on the content of speech is the trial Schenck vs. United States in 1919. Here, the Supreme Court convicted the defendants for braking the Espionage Act of 1917 by circulating to men, about to enter the United States army a document that slowed and cut down on the enlistment and recruiting service. The court stated that the freedom of speech would not protect a man from falsely yelling fire in a theater and so creating a clear and present danger (Stone, Seidman 2 nd ed. ). The court continued to say that when the nation is in a war, the civil rights of people may be less than in peace time.
In all, the court explained that the First Amendment had major restrictions during war time. A case related on the basis of how speech is being expressed is the case of Schneider vs. State. This case involved the restriction of leafleting. The case went in favor with the leaflets. The opinion of the court was that as long as the streets remained clear so that traffic could pass, the freedom of expression by literature was legal and could not be challenged by any regulation.
Furthermore, the opinion of the court stated: This court has characterized the freedom of speech and the freedom of press as fundamental personal rights and liberties. [Mere] legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities, but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions. And so, as cases arise, the delicate and difficult task falls upon the courts to weight the circumstances and to appraise the substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of the rights (Vol. 308 p. 147). The outcome of the case was that leafleting was found to be legal and protected under the First Amendment. Today people are still allowed to speak out through the practice of leafleting.
In the case of Martin vs. City of Struthers, a Jehovah s Witness was going door to door ringing doorbells in order to hand out fliers advertising a meeting to be held. The man was accused of violating a city regulation stating that no person had the right to go door to door and distribute fliers. The Courts decision was that the regulation was unconstitutional based on the First Amendment.
Even though door to door distribution of literature may be an inconvenience, it is a valuable way of expressing ideas. Door to door distribution is necessary for people with poorly financed causes (Stone, Seidman 2 nd ed. ). Also, the Court decreed that the Freedom to distribute information to every citizen whenever he desires to receive it is so clearly vital to the preservation of a free society that, putting aside reasonable police and health regulations of time and manner of distribution, it must be fully preserved (Vol. 319 p. 141). Again, the First Amendment overruled a city regulation and the freedom of speech was upheld.
Another case in which it focuses on the basis of how it is being expressed is the case of Kovacs vs. Cooper. A regulation which stated that any person using a sound truck or other instrument that emits loud noises on a public street was enforced. The Court said: City streets are recognized as a normal place for the exchange of [ideas]. But this does not mean that the freedom is beyond all control. We think it is a permissible exercise of legislative discretion to bar sound [trucks], amplified to a loud and raucous volume, from the public ways of municipalities.
On the business [streets] such distractions would be dangerous to traffic at all hours useful for the dissemination of information, and in the residential thoroughfares the quiet and tranquillity so desirable for city dwellers would likewise be at the mercy of advocates of particular religious, social or political persuasions The right of free speech is guaranteed every citizen that he may reach the minds of willing listeners and to do so there must be opportunity to win their attention. [But the ] freedom of speech [does] not require legislators to be insensible to claims by citizens to comfort and convenience. The enforce freedom of speech in disregard of the rights of others would be harsh and arbitrary in itself (Vol. 336 p. 77). The court enforced and upheld the safety and needs of the people in the streets. Once again, one can see how the freedom of speech is not completely absolute. The congress as well has abridged the freedom of speech one of which is in 1978. Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts.
These acts made it a criminal offense to entice people to overthrow an established government (Microsoft Speech, Freedom of). In all the freedom of expression is not guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. It is only protected from being obstructed upon by the government. Also the freedom of expression is not entirely absolute. It has over the years been overridden by the interests and safety of the people. Works Cited Speech, Freedom of, Microsoft (R) Encarta (R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) Microsoft Corporation 1993 - 1997.
Meiklejohn, Alexander. Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government New York: Books-Merrill Company, Inc. , 1948. United States Supreme Court Reports Volumes: 249, 308, 319, 336 West Publishing, 1919, 1939, 1943, 1949. Stone, Geoffrey R. ; Seidman, Robert H. ; Suite, Cass r. ; Mark V.
Tushnet. Constitutional Law, 2 nd ed. Boston: Little Brown &# 038; Company, 1991. Bram L.
Leon; Dickey H. Norma. Funk &# 038; Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. Volume 7, R.
R. Donnellye &# 038; Sons Company.
Free research essays on topics related to: door to door, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, 2 nd ed, funk 038 wagnalls
Research essay sample on Freedom Of Speech Funk 038 Wagnalls
