Federalism And Freedom Of Speech

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

For example, when Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in 1984, many Americans were outraged and blatantly critical of Johnson's actions, just as the author expresses his disagreement in the political cartoon (Doc 2). However, after the Supreme Court ruled that this action was symbolic speech, and therefore protected, some Americans began to reshape their thoughts. As written by the Supreme Court, "the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." This change in thinking for Americans has opened a door to new freedoms and more ways to express opinions in society, further protecting our rights to free speech. The Bill of Rights also leaves interpretation of many laws up the states, therefore protecting us from an all powerful national government.

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

The ruling of Tinker. V. Des Moines is a good example of how well the Supreme Court used to highly value First Amendment rights. In the early Supreme Court case, which happened in the 1960s, seven out of nine justices, the vast majority of the Supreme Court (Gold), voted in the students’ favor. This fits in with other early Supreme Court rulings, such as the 1940 court ruling in Thornhill v. Alabama where they stated that First Amendment rights applied to picketers as long as they did not cause property destruction or harm others (Gold), or the ruling in West Virginia v. Barnette later in the 1940s in which the court stated that “students also had a right to express themselves symbolically” (Gold). Early U.S. Supreme Court opinions supported Americans’ right to symbolic speech as long as it did not cause a “clear and present danger” to others (Gold), and the fact that the aforementioned early rulings were in favor of this right supports this. How often the Supreme Court voted in favor of the First Amendment in the era Tinker v. Des Moines took place shows that they used to highly value First Amendment rights.

Free speech shall not incite evil and hatred in this country. The First Amendment prevents the government from infringing upon our freedom of assembly and speech. “The disability is so complete that Congress is expressly forbidden to enact laws respecting an establishment of religion, or laws abridging the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and press, and the right to petition the government” (Bybee). As a whole, our founding fathers only had good intentions with regards to First Amendment rights in America.

Texas v. Johnson was about a man named Gregory Lee Johnson who burned an American flag for his protest against the Reagan administration policies. Burning the flag brought up the question of what defines speech, and what covers it in the first amendment. Texas’s

The First Amendment has its flaws; it does not protect against all forms speech and articles with negative intent. In each of the cases, newspaper organizations were tried for using their freedom of press. Time, place and manner regulation treats all acts of speech the same. Under this guideline, people may socialize freely in public, but may not talk at a time or place that would cause major traffic blockage, because it’s affecting the rights of other individuals. The Court developed the time, place, and manner regulation to decide if federal jurisdictions of free speech were legal under the Constitution. In this rule, limitations on free speech are solely constitutional if the speech’s content is neutral. The right’s granted under the First

Throughout the years of US jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to allow latitude to speech of the press and of the people. However, the restrictions on speech the Court determined to fall outside the limits of permitted speech and therefore considered “unprotected speech” include fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation, solicitations to commit crimes, child pornography, blackmail, perjury, obscenity, and false & misleading commercial speech. To look back at recorded foundations of the first amendment regarding speech – words used to incite imminent lawless action, can be seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The U.S. Supreme Court held that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” That is to say, a state can’t stop free speech unless there is imminent danger of inciting violence.

The First Amendment, freedom of speech, has proven to have made a tremendous impact on our history and the course we have taken. Our country has been transformed throughout history to appreciate the different cultures, religions, and traditions; from a simple act as speaking up to what we think is right we have seen our nation grow and prosper. As citizens, we are entitled to express our opinions and this right must be respected. However, we have taken advantage of this amendment. Nowadays, freedom of speech has become more destructive than supportive. Freedom of speech means giving everyone a chance to speak up; this does not give us the right to harm other individuals.

This landmark supreme court cases and the constitution focuses on a case involving expressive conduct and what is for many a deeply cherished symbol of America- The U.S. flag. In a closely divided (5-4) ruling, the Supreme Court held that the states could not forbid burning the U.S. flag in protest because doing so would violate the freedom of speech protected by the first

The First Amendment of The Constitution is acknowledged to be the guarantor of Freedom of Speech clause in the United States. The same level of recognition Freedom of Speech receives is also given to the controversy that is has created. The ambiguity that revolves around Freedom of Speech has led to question its validity, due to the scope in which each case is presented, most notably at the time in which the United States was experiencing social and political ideologies. Thus, the Supreme Court had the arduous task of intervening and creating measures that would distinguish constitutionally protected speech and speech that would be regulated. The two most important interpretations that have allowed the Supreme Court to distinguish constitutionally

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

On this world today free speech has been a standout amongst the most battled after rights in the United Conditions of America. The right to speak freely was received on December 15, 1791. The right to speak freely is secured by the main correction in the Constitution of United States, which is the privilege to explain one’s suppositions and thoughts without dread of government countering or control, or societal endorse. Free discourse is imperative in the public arena since we are allowed to create as individuals and end up noticeably mindful of what is happening around us. The right to speak freely played an extremely vital part in how and our identity today and is the principle motivation behind why we