Freedom Of Speech : The First Amendment Of The Constitution

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

Galloway (2013), Galloway argued that the town of Greece violated the establishment clause. The establishment clause within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the national government is unable to establish an official religion. In this court case, it was ruled that the prayers at the town hall did not violate the establishment clause. The basis for this ruling had to do with tradition. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2013), the Green family had to provide health care to their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ruling for this case was that the religious beliefs of the Green family are a factor that can let them deny health care to employees that have different religious beliefs. With a five to four ruling, the Hobby Lobby Stores won the case. These two cases show how Freedom of Religion can be used

On September 19, 2013 the supreme court saw the case of Hobby Lobby V.S Sebelius. If the courts agree with Hobby Lobby then millions of women are out of essential health care they need just because their employers don 't want to cover contraceptives. Even though congress made it clear that these laws made for religious freedom were made for individuals, religious institutions, and religious organizations. If corporations were given religious freedom, it does not necessarily mean that they will be given freedom from contraception requirements that do not burden religious freedom. All the health care plan was made for was to give women the health care they need for their well being.

Under the separation of church and state, these organizations have the right to refuse service based on this objection; however, that separation is not being honored in such situations. Religious freedom laws would further separate religion from government intervention, allowing faith based businesses and organizations to conduct business in a manner that is suitable to their

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Supreme Court has been inconsistent in the application of these sometimes conflicting requirements. At times, the Court takes a separationist position, erecting a solid wall between church and state, and at other times takes an accommodationist position, siding with an individual’s right to exercise their religious beliefs. Religious liberty under the First Amendment should not be limited to private individuals, but extended to corporations, and only when its application does not interfere with legitimate governmental interests. History shows that the Court has repeatedly found that constitutional rights extend to corporations. This controversial approach was recently seen in the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). Today, the Court continues to address this issue.

Whether big or small, corporations should not be treated like people, let alone granted religious freedom. The Supreme Court continued the horrible trend of pro-corporation rights. Whether one stands with Hobby Lobby, Inc. and considers this case a success of religious freedom or an intrusion, I see it as the court favored corporation’s rights over personal rights. Female workers should be given the availability to use contraceptives. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Burwell v. Hobby. The case dealt with the free exercise clause under the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFTA) and whether a for-profit corporation could be exempt from the Affordable Care Act. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the government from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion unless “application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is the “least restrictive means of furthering that interest”.

Even though freedom of speech can be tricky, being able to excogitate is key to understanding what can be said under the first amendment is key. This will give you more confidence when you're talking about current events, it'll inhibit social interaction, but the biggest reason of all is understanding your rights will keep you out of jail. Even the supreme court struggles to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. When trying to see if your covered by the first amendment, certain questions have to be displayed. Are we free to say whatever we want? Exactly what is freedom of speech, what can I say, and what can't I say and still be covered by the first amendment? Understanding the dilemma that freedom of speech just like anything

According to the Bill of Rights, we are afforded the freedom of speech through the first amendment. But this awarding of freedom is only allowed if it goes along with what the general population deems “normal”. During the middle part of the 1900’s many books were banned on political, religious, and moral views. While our society has changed these issues are still prevalent in today’s public views and opinions of author’s work. These books are not “normal” and that is why they play an unprecedented part in literature today. Books written in this era had a different political, religious, and moral atmosphere than those written in the modern day; but these same issues arise in today’s society.

Free Speech is the American’s most important and used privilege provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Every American use this technique to express their beliefs and it is most often attacked freedom by the government. Although many critics argue for the unlimited boundaries and lesser interruption by the government to the freedom of speech, I support the systematical restrictions by the government. In my opinion, the extent of free speech is somewhere it can persuasive to its audience as well as less insulting to its opposing ones. I think it is offensive to insult any religious beliefs for the actions led by some members of the religion. For example, Muslims, we cannot pressure them to move from American

One of the most major rights being religious freedom among corporations. For example, in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the discussion of “religious freedoms” among corporations was brought up regarding the “contraceptive mandate” issued to employees under the Affordable Care Act. Although this was a 5-4 case in which the corporation was victorious, it is aiding in setting a precedent for religious corporations to “unjustly force their beliefs” on their employees (Millhiser). As a result, workers of any religious beliefs who desire contraceptives are limited by Hobby Lobby, a product that is granted by law. Not only is this interfering with the the Affordable Care Act, but it is also empowering corporations to influence the rights held by their workers. On the other hand, others may not regard this as a significant issue for the Supreme Court’s application of religious exemption applies only to “closely held private corporations”. However, this is not the case as “More than 90 percent of all US firms are close corporations” (Nagar 1). This means that a decision such as the one adjudicated for Hobby Lobby can apply to nearly all American

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993, allows for any business to be entitled to an exemption from applicable laws as long as it can be proven to be due to one’s religious belief. (Rivkin, David & Whelan, 2012). In simpler terms, it means that a business owner or church has the right to discriminate in the form of not providing pro-choice rights to female employees, to deny patronage to their businesses to gay/lesbian couples and to not offer the aforementioned employee benefits because of their sexual orientation. However, bear in mind, in order to deny these individuals, their particular rights, one merely has to cite the new RFRA act. In order to support the statements made previously, please see examples below:

I believe that the First Amendment, guaranteed the right of Freedom of Speech, is a very important Amendment because it allows Americans to express themselves, it gives America a voice, and it can help the government make decisions that citizens will agree with. As Sara Bareille says, “Say what you wanna say, and let the words fall out”!

The govt. dictates to small businesses that they have to do business with customers, even if in conflict with their conscience or religious beliefs, ignoring the civil rights of the business owner. Are the businesses that refuse service to patrons that don’t wear shoes or shirts because of their cultural beliefs in violation of their civil rights?

Jack Phillips had a religious conviction to not serve the gay couple, but was not allowed to practice his religion. Making it illegal for corporations and business to practice religious freedom also limits the beliefs of the employees in those businesses. Lakewood bakery is a small privately owned bakery, and its owner should be able to practice his religion while he owns his business. Cutting off religious freedom limits the rights of people like Jack Phillips. Although Jack Phillips is not the only example. Consider for example Kim Davis who was forced to deny her own religious freedom and grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples or force loosing her own job. According to NBC News “The Kentucky clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples”. Kim Davis should not be jailed for practicing her religion, because freedom of religion is a first amendment