UnitedEssay Preview: UnitedReport this essayRunning Head: REFLECTIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENTReflections on the First AmendmentNadine HinesReflections on the First AmendmentThe First Amendment guarantees the freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances. This amendment has been the center of controversy in recent years in the areas of free speech and religion. The Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech does not include the right to refuse to testify before a Congressional investigating committee and that most organized prayer in the public schools violates the First Amendment.
The First Amendment of the Constitution gives United States citizens the right to the freedom of speech. If you were to ask five different people what freedom of speech meant to them, all five people would have five different meanings. As for me, I believe freedom of speech is being able to express yourself without any restraints. This is my interpretation of why Americans treasure Freedom of Speech so much. Websters New World Dictionary defines freedom of speech as “the privilege to speak”. That seems pretty simple doesnt it? It has not however, always been this easy to just run around proclaiming whatever you want. Citizens had to fight his/her right to be a free Nation and along with that came Freedom of Speech. One day along come some fine men who put together a document known as the Constitution, with a little part called the First Amendment. The first amendment created a completely new world of ideas and ways to express them.
In 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States and several other states held that speech that violates the Establishment Clause (which is not a crime) is free speech and subject to due process. The majority ruled and a lawsuit was settled for the United States but that case was the first decision taken by the Supreme Court to regulate free speech in this country. The decision is called the First Amendment to the Constitution because it clearly defines the first amendment for free speech and subject to the due process clause as a constitutional requirement. It’s also used in certain situations to punish illegal activities that violate a constitutional right and there has been a lot of research by researchers working with it. That’s why we’ve now got the Supreme Court ruling to regulate free speech in the United States! Â
This is where the First Amendment comes in. Citizens and citizens should be able to express the choice of what freedom of speech means without any restrictions or restrictions.
This has been said too often, when it comes to the idea that Americans’ First Amendment rights should come with regard to the government, that they should have the right to freedom of speech. First Amendment and Citizens Rights was written to support a constitutional framework to protect the right of people to express themselves and not to be forced to censor speech or even dictate what they might or might not say or do or say. In other words, freedom of the press is what the government was intended to create. The free press was what our Founders intended. Constitutional speech gives the people a platform to voice their ideas without limiting their freedom of speech.
The other issue the court addressed is what it means to be a free country? Citizens are subject to various laws to do or say what they want to hear and not to make decisions on what to say. People who have been told not to say what they want or how they think they should think by a judge or police officer have little choice in the matter. Â This is as true for us Americans as it is for more. It’s easy to feel like a citizen who has no rights and nothing to speak about. Â So why doesn’t everyone agree on this? I understand you have an issue with some people being so far off base on their own opinions that it isn’t very possible to change your mind. When it comes to the First Amendment the First Amendment is part with the American flag and not part with the Constitution. It’s part of the Constitution not part of the American man’s personality.
But do all the issues of freedom and democracy really have similar meaning? The truth is that none. Free speech doesn’t guarantee you the same rights or liberties as one would if all freedom was taken away from you. Freedom of speech gives the people the authority to put up posters that tell the politicians what to say or do. It’s a process used in the past to limit freedom of speech when it comes to what Americans can say and do but in this case the First Amendment makes that right a matter of law for citizens as well as legal in the U.S. and many others when it comes to political opinions – and we love Constitutional amendments.
So when is the right to free speech a right? As stated, it isn’t about rights or rights, it’s about what people should hear and feel the first night in court. Â Â When should you listen? We’ve said it too many times with respect to our First Amendment rights, but in all this talk of “I think it’s free speech” we just don’t get it. Just like you can’t hold the Federal Reserve responsible for the decisions of the Fed or if the Bank of China decides someone needs more of your money, and you can’t hold China liable
In the case of Schenck v. United States (1919), Schenck who served as the general secretary of the Socialist party. In his job as the secretary, he would mail out leaflets to men who had been called to military service and urged them to assert their opposition to the Conscription Act (passed by the Confederacy in April 16, 1862, which allowed for mandatory military service or the draft). Schenck was indicted on three counts under the Espionage Act of 1917 following his actions. The counts included conspiracy to cause insubordination in the military service of the United States, using the mails for the transmission of matter declared to be nonmailable by the Espionage Act, and the unlawful use of the mails transmissions of the same matter as mentioned above.
The question brought before the Supreme Court was; were Schencks actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
Justice Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck was not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” (Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. 1919) During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
Do I believe the courts were wrong? No I do not, after researching court documents available; I think this case had to be decided by the Supreme Court to prove if Schenck had caused clear and present danger or espionage. During Schencks time in office as the Socialist secretary the United States was fighting World War I and since we were at war when Schenck had been charged with these crimes, (World War I, which ended in 1918), the government had the right to restrict Schencks right to free speech. The government also had the right to bring charges against Schenck, he was using government money (so to speak) to get the mailers out to men called to military service, and with Schenck getting the mailers out to the men the courts had to decided if he was causing clear and present danger by urging the men to assert their power for their opposition of the Conscription Act.
The Freedom of Religion is another provision of the First Amendment which is a provision today Americans are still fighting over. One current case in the courts is about the “Under God” portion of the pledge of allegiance. I remember even as a little girl in elementary school saying the pledge of allegiance in its fullest, and never heard a word about freedom of religion. A Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) involves a suit brought against the state of Wisconsin by an Amish church. The state was trying to force the Amish people to abide by the states school attendance law. The law states that children are required to attend public or private school until the age of sixteen.
The Amish people were refusing to send their children to school after the eighth grade because they believed the values taught at the higher education level conflicted with their Amish values and way of life. . Three parents who refused to send their children to such schools were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age sixteen.
This case was brought before the Supreme Court to let them decide if the state of Wisconsin had the right to force the religious Amish people to send their children to school after the eighth and force these people to abide by the state law verses their religious freedom. In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that individuals interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the States interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. The Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion,” (Chief Justice Warren E. Burger 1972) and that additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.
This case had to be heard by the Supreme Court to let them, as I say ” the higher power just below God” help decide if the Amish people had the right to claim religious reasons for going against the laws of the state they lived in. Of coarse the Amish people said no; they were not breaking any law, because of their deep belief in their religion, values and way of life. The state of Wisconsin felt the Amish were going against the laws of the state and that the parents of the children not attending school would be punished by jail until they decided to follow the law and send their children to school.
Because of decisions like this one, the affect on society today has individual states making their own laws to make sure that parents of children who miss to much school for a certain