Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.” The First Amendment to the Unites States Constitution has been under much scrutiny and had much heat of late. Returning to its pure roots, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie describes how the U. S. Government must allow freedom speech, even if it is evil, to protect the democracy. When the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA), a professed Nazi group, applied for a permit to demonstrate in the highly Jewish city of Skokie, the town refused to grant the permit. NSPA took their case to the county court which granted them the ability to peacefully protest …show more content…
This case points back to the purpose of government. Dwight D. Eisenhower as did many Unites States presidents, stated countless times that a democracy can only stand with virtuous people as its citizens. If evil people fill the country, only a dictatorship can bring order. This case demonstrates that America is built upon allowing the free speech of controversial and opposing views. Limiting the rights of the NSPA would pave the way for other types of speech to be limited. My initial view was of course that anyone promoting Nazis views should not be allowed to march, especially considering the town’s Jewish population. After further consideration, I realized that if the government has the ability to restrict Nazis’ protests, they have the ability to silence me if I am trying to share my faith with a Nazi and it offends them. If we give this power of limiting free speech to the government, they will basically be able to limit it however they so choose. If we allow the government to specifically certain types of speech, that power will invariably grow and power that is once tasted is not given back. We would most definitely loose freedom in other areas of speech. The speech, though I’m sure it caused emotional distress, did not physically harm the citizens of the town. I do think that the banning of the swastika was appropriate. At popularly agreed times, it is not appropriate to demonstrate with the Confederate Flag or other symbols that can inferred with extreme
The first and inargueably the most significant of the amendments to our Constitution is the First Amendment. The amendment that established our freedoms as citizens of our new confederation. The First Amendment insured, among other things, freedom of speech and of the press. Since the establishment of these rights, they have often been in question. People have debated over, "What is too much freedom?", and "When is this
The First Amendment states that “everybody has freedom of speech, press, and religion.” The First Amendment allows us, as U.S. citizens to speak freely about our feelings throughout the government. The First Amendment could possibly be the most important in the whole Bill of Rights. This amendment affects us in our daily life, whether we're teenagers or adults
In the R.A.V v. City of St. Paul case, a white teenager was arrested for burning a cross in the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. According to the state, this was in violation of a 1989 city ordinance making it a crime to place on public or public property a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, and gender." In this case, a higher court decided that R.A.V’s first amendments were violated because the state was punishing expression. The ordinance didn’t simply make burning a cross illegal, but instead made the expression associated with this act illegal, which the court considered a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
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.
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.
Though the First Amendment nationally guarantees our right to free expression, the Fourteenth Amendment also champions our cause in the states by means of the due-process clause. The due-process clause states that "no state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" (Wilson). Until 1925, it was legal for the states to pass legislation prohibiting such forms of protest as symbolic speech because the Supreme Court had previosly denied that the due-process clause made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. However, in the case Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court decided that freedom of speech and of the press implicated the "fundamental personal rights" protected by the due-process clause, and the states could no longer breach through legislation those freedoms guaranteed to each individual (Wilson). This case established the precedence that state laws involving speech violate the freedom of expression guarantees of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, no matter how offensive or repugnant some forms of expression may be, that expression has strong and definite constitutional protections that cannot be encroached by the national or state governments. To create an amendment to weaken our civil liberties constitutes a means to further destroy the representation of our national symbol - the flag.
The first amendment is a vital and powerful tool for the everyday American. By using the power granted to us we can nip corruption before it blossoms into tyranny. With it, we can organize against a government that answers to corporate and special interests. Our strengths against corporate interests were shown when protests were held across the United
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.
This article emphasizes the First Amendment and its limits. In this article, there are many examples and cases that involve the First Amendment and how it is used. In Tinker v. Des Moines, John Tinker and some fellow students that attended Des Moines public school were suspended for wearing black armbands to school. They wore the armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The school district was afraid of the outcome of the students wearing the armbands rather than acknowledging their freedom of speech The students then brought a suit against the school saying that the suspension violated their rights of freedom of speech. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the students did nothing wrong. They silently expressed
In the Edwards v. South Carolina case a group of african-american protesters organised a peaceful march to the South Carolina State House and were confronted by a group of police who arrested the protesters for “breach of the peace” after they refused to disperse, and sang patriotic songs. The supreme court decided in favor of the protesters and said that the arrests violated the protesters First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The first amendment of the constitution is a fundamental building block of our liberty. Without it, tyrannical ideals could encompass America with nothing to stop it. With the application of the first amendment the government is kept in check through itself, regulating its own rights and balancing its power. Though perhaps more importantly, this right gives the people the power to petition and address the government with their own concerns; through these rights, the people have the ability to regulate the government’s regulation of itself, and therein lies the absolute
These 45 words of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution embody some of our most important ideas about the meaning of liberty. A nationally recognized leader in the field of law related citizen education has truly broken down the importance of the First Amendment and he say, “Remove the First Amendment from the United States Constitution and you strike out the very means of testing the other rights and of protesting abuses of government.”
Back in the 70s, Skokie, Illinois was a normal American town, with one difference: it was home to a large community of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. This had little importance on the national stage until 1977, when the National Socialist Party of America decided to hold a rally in Skokie. An injunction was issued against the rally by the village, citing the disturbing effect it would have on the residents. The pro-civil liberties group American Civil Liberties Union came to the aid of the Nazis, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court in National Socialist Party v Skokie. When the Supreme Court handed down their opinion, it was decided in favor of the Nazis, making clear that freedom defends the even the most deplorable. It is argued
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
Forcible removals implemented by the police-obedient to direct orders from officials, are based upon laws of that particular state. Freedom of speech does not mean planting yourself as a seed upon the lawns of a privately owned land, as has been the case for forcible removal of undeterred protestors camped out on privately owned Zuccotti Park. The park protestor’s research must have been poorly done. Most recently, the United Nations has stepped in to say that the United States government is mistreating demonstrators by removing them from protest areas. Incredibly, the happenstance of an event is inviting unsolicited comments from allies in other countries.