“The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, or more appropriately, the first eight, are called the Bill of Rights.” (Kanovitz, 2015, p. 20) The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right to petition, and right to assemble. Although many believe that the first amendment gives full protection, there are certain limits placed upon it. Freedom of speech has limitations when it comes to obscenity, inciting immediate unlawful action, and using fighting words. Where many seek freedom, they are met with limitations.
The Miller v. California case is an example of a limitation on the First Amendment. In this particular case, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. In January of 1972, Marvin Miller started an advertising campaign and passed out fliers advertising the sale of “adult” materials that contained images that were considered obscene and not meant for young children. The majority of recipients did not enjoy receiving the lewd materials and called upon police to take legal action. The California Police Department found that the material was indeed unsuitable to be sent to the general population and decided to arrest Mr. Miller. Miller appealed his case to the Supreme Court because he felt as if his First Amendment right had been violated and he was unlawfully arrested and censored. The court heard his case and ruled in favor of the California police department. The First Amendment allows freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the right to assemble, but it does not allow freedom of speech if the general population has been violated. This case lead to the creation of the ‘Miller Test’. This test is used to consider what is obscene to the general population. This test also helps determine what materials are or are not protected by the First Amendment. Another limitation that does not protect citizens under the First Amendment is using fighting words that disturb the peace. In April 1940, Walter Chaplinsky was in downtown in Rochester, New Hampshire handing out literature and speaking publicly …show more content…
U.S.”)This test was invented in the aftermath of the Schenck v. United States case. Charles Schenck was a leader of a Socialist party who decided to send information to men who were recently drafted for the war. The content of the letters criticized the war and advised the men not to go to war. He was later convicted under the Espionage Act. The government claimed that Schenck violated this act by his actions that could incite insubordination in the soldiers. Schenck then responded that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court determined that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment. “The Court then argued that "the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." While in peacetime such flyers could be construed as harmless speech, in times of war they could be construed as acts of national insubordination.” (McBride, Schenck v. U.S.) Mr. Schenck had the right to speak his mind but his message was reckless. The aforementioned “clear and present danger” test was replaced with the “imminent lawless action” test that was born from the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969. This test protects a much broader range of speech. It also entails that the government may only limit speech that incites unlawful
The Miller v. California case is an example of a limitation on the First Amendment. In this particular case, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. In January of 1972, Marvin Miller started an advertising campaign and passed out fliers advertising the sale of “adult” materials that contained images that were considered obscene and not meant for young children. The majority of recipients did not enjoy receiving the lewd materials and called upon police to take legal action. The California Police Department found that the material was indeed unsuitable to be sent to the general population and decided to arrest Mr. Miller. Miller appealed his case to the Supreme Court because he felt as if his First Amendment right had been violated and he was unlawfully arrested and censored. The court heard his case and ruled in favor of the California police department. The First Amendment allows freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the right to assemble, but it does not allow freedom of speech if the general population has been violated. This case lead to the creation of the ‘Miller Test’. This test is used to consider what is obscene to the general population. This test also helps determine what materials are or are not protected by the First Amendment. Another limitation that does not protect citizens under the First Amendment is using fighting words that disturb the peace. In April 1940, Walter Chaplinsky was in downtown in Rochester, New Hampshire handing out literature and speaking publicly …show more content…
U.S.”)This test was invented in the aftermath of the Schenck v. United States case. Charles Schenck was a leader of a Socialist party who decided to send information to men who were recently drafted for the war. The content of the letters criticized the war and advised the men not to go to war. He was later convicted under the Espionage Act. The government claimed that Schenck violated this act by his actions that could incite insubordination in the soldiers. Schenck then responded that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court determined that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment. “The Court then argued that "the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." While in peacetime such flyers could be construed as harmless speech, in times of war they could be construed as acts of national insubordination.” (McBride, Schenck v. U.S.) Mr. Schenck had the right to speak his mind but his message was reckless. The aforementioned “clear and present danger” test was replaced with the “imminent lawless action” test that was born from the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969. This test protects a much broader range of speech. It also entails that the government may only limit speech that incites unlawful