Should The First Amendment Right? Be Protected At All Times?

Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. 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." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime

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.

The first amendment, the right of freedom of speech is one of the most important classic fantasy to almost anyone living in the United States, building the foundation of our nation. This right gives us plenty of different opportunities to express our opinions and political viewpoints on any issues in America. But it comes with a price, people have been protesting multiple different events trying to prevent people from expressing opposing opinions or political viewpoints on that has issues in America. For the minority of people, expressing a different opinion should be protected no matter how controversial or insensitive it may be.

Diverse communities in the United States set certain laws to protect their properties from being vandalized with graffiti and protect them from loud noise; rules of this kind should be evenly upheld in order to not discriminate for or against anybody’s opinions or ideas. If the governing authorities see fit to change the laws to prohibit such expressions, they should be cautious. Bok says we are faced with the main example of, the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to have a community founded on mutual respect. Bok shows that power of

Neil Gaiman once said, “The current total of countries in the world with First Amendments is one. You have guaranteed the freedom of speech. Other countries don’t have that.” At the time of the amendments’ creation, a vast majority of operating countries had not yet granted their people such freedoms. Granting every citizen of the United States this right seemed to have been an important landmark in this nation’s history. Along with others, this right is declared to the people in the first amendment of the constitution. The first amendment is the most important because it grants people freedom of speech, prohibits prior restraint, and declares the right to peaceable assembly.

When our Nation had regarded themselves as thirteen newly colonies and to separate themselves from Great Britain. Congress had imparted to the state legislature twelve amendments to the Constitution. These Amendments later became the Bill of Rights, the first basic rights that the country was founded to provide. The whole point that the Bill of Rights were made was so that new Federal Government were prevented from impairing human rights and freedom. However, these rights are being undermined through extreme liberalism that happens in the education system predominantly the First Amendment.

Though all protests may not result in violent activities, they are still able to leave a detrimental effect on society, as protests may violate people’s rights, especially the right to privacy. A specific example of one’s right to privacy being violated by protests is the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals (Anti- Defamation League 2013). Although these protests are peaceful a majority of the time, they disrupt military funerals and infringe on the grieving family’s right to privacy. More specifically, those who are mourning the loss of a loved one expect to do this in private, not with protesters rioting in the background, disrupting the secluded funeral. Eventually, limitations were placed on these unconstitutional protests stating that protesters must be a certain distance from the funeral and can only protest two hours before and after the funeral (The Huffington Post 2016) . Though some may believe both the right to petition and assemble should be unlimited, this case demonstrates that these rights must be restricted in order to protect the contradiction of others’ right to

A very popular constitutional issue in America is the First Amendment. The First Amendment is meant to protect, but in today’s society it is being questioned that the argument is being overly used. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference (Esmaili). Freedom of religion created the separation of church and state. It prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The right of freedom of expression gives the right to assemble and gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Court later interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. Putting this is layman’s term, you can pretty much say what you want without being penalized.

Nevertheless, speech or vernacular that is threatening or violent towards other citizens-or adversely and negatively affects the freedoms of others- can be restricted and enjoys no protection from the Bill of Rights. In the subsequent weeks after the Charlie Hebdo and Curtis Culwell shootings, both the FBI and Parisian police aggressively targeted, banned, and censored anti-Islamic speech or discourse in an attempt to stem future violence. While these reactions may be well-intended, it is imperative to remember that even speech that profoundly insults our personal values or is hateful to our ideals warrants the same protection as other speech solely because freedom of expression is inseparable: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are

The first amendment is the most important part of the Constitution because it has been the most exercised right by U.S citizens. 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.” Meaning, as citizens, the Constitution protects our freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition the government. This amendment is a good reflection of what America represents, equality for all.

The First Amendment gives us the essential freedoms we as United States citizens deserve. This amendment gives us Freedom of peaceful assembly, speech, press, religion and the freedom to petition the Government. It is thought to be the most important freedom of the United States. Only because of this right we are able to speak our mind freely, pray without judgment, express ourselves, and protest peacefully. Our Founding Fathers had been Framers of the Constitution and they are responsible for all the rights documented and established in the United States.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

In the case of Snyder vs Phelps The family of a departed Marine named Lance Cpl, Matthew Snyder put forth legal action against parties of the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing at his funeral. According to the family the church was responsible for defamation, invasion of privacy and the deliberate punishment of emotional suffering, The members of the church held signs that read "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett granted the Snyder family $5 million in damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the decision violated the First Amendment's protections of religious expression. Does the First Amendment defend protesters who deliberately cause emotional

Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of

“At what point do we take personal attacks, and permit those, as opposed to -- I fully accept you’re entitled, in some circumstances, to speak about any political issue you want. But where is the line between doing that, and creating hardship for an individual?” –Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the case of Snyder V. Phelps, Two very passionate sides debated just that. The Snyder family accused Phelps, or Westboro, of the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, after Westboro picketed Phelps’ son’s funeral. Westboro disputed this, claiming their protests were protected under The First Amendment.