Legal Policy Essay: The First Amendment

Superior Essays
Legal Policy Essay The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, as considered being one of the most fundamental protection of the American way of life in a democratic society. However, it is also very clear that there are certain forms of speech are prohibited. For example, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”; other limitations to freedom of speech include defamation, hate speech obscenity, and child pornography. Among all the situations with controversy, Constitution generally prohibits government’s regulation of speech, even when the speaker’s opinions are reprehensible to …show more content…
California case, Robert Cohen was arrested after wearing a jacket printed with “F THE DRAFT” to protest the Vietnam War at municipal courthouse, then he was sentenced 30 days in jail for violating the state ordinance which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct”. It is obvious that the state law was unconstitutional permissible since it violated Cohen’s rights of free speech. Since the act was considered as an offensive speech of profanity to convict Cohen, however, the fact that certain words are offensive doesn’t make them fighting words. Cohen was simply expressing his feeling and opinion toward the war and the draft, but not engaging in any threatening conduct with this speech. The state has no power to punish him for the content of his message showing no malicious intention or behavior of disobedience to the draft. Further, if we only look at the parties involved in this case, it was even failed to be defined as “fighting words” because the message in his speech was not directed to any person. In fact, it was just a distasteful message constituted emotive speech seeking to get public attention, which is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Under this situation, any ordinance or law which infringes individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms renders itself unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court made the justified decision in overturning Cohen conviction, preserving …show more content…
v City of St. Paul. After burning a cross inside a black family’s lawn, R.A.V. was charged under city’s Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which prohibits such actions that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender”. The state supreme court of Minnesota held the ordinance, but was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision aroused much controversy given the situation that it appeared like the ordinance burdened the freedom of speech while intending to protect the freedom of religion, which is under the same protection of First Amendment. Even though there were voice from the public and legal experts questioning and objecting the judicial decision, it was actually made with a unanimous vote, considering based on the legitimacy of statute itself. The Court fully acknowledged that certain forms of speech including fighting words were not constitutional protected, however, it was the Minnesota’s law that the Court found being unconstitutional because it was narrowly tailored as it only restricted certain types of fighting words naming racial, gender and religious discrimination. Under the First Amendment, the state is not permissible to regulate categories of unprotect speech on the bias of content and Minnesota’s statute failed to meet the strict scrutiny. Therefore, the assertion in the statement accusing that the First Amendment put listeners under psychological harm

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    that the definition of hate speech is broad and unacceptable as there are far too many contrasting kinds of speech that may be considered hate speech, all of which implicate free speech interests, and may cause distinctive types of harm (Yong, 2011, p. 386). According to Robin Edger in the article, Are Hate Speech Provisions Anti-Democratic? : An International Perspective, previous rulings in discrimination and hate motivated crimes have”…excluded threatening words, or ‘fighting words,’ from the scope of the First Amendment Protection…” as they are not considered the expression and sharing of views, nor are they intended to rally supporters. Fighting words are intended to incite violence or inflict injury (Edger, 2011, p. 152). As long as speech does not threaten harm or danger, Americans cannot be deprived of free speech merely because the viewpoint being expressed is undesirable.…

    • 1102 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Still, Lee would point out that abridging means the exercise of prior restraint. The government can’t stop someone from publishing a malicious article, but the person can be punished after. However, to combat Lee’s argument Madison states that certain powers -enumerated powers- are given to the government, which is what they have total control over. There is no enumerated power in the Constitution for Congress to claim that they can control the press, therefore they shouldn’t be able to punish people even if it is after the article had already been published. In fact, the First Amendment added an express denial of any such power.…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are more important issues than arguing over something that has been decided by the Supreme Court and something that is even protected by the Constitution. It is true that “Any messages that burning the flag might convey easily can be communicated in other ways” (Allen). However, the Constitution does not say anything against it. People may want to change the law because they believe that burning the flag should be a crime. Changing the law would be unconstitutional since freedom of speech is under amendment one and changing the Bill of Rights on its own is not possible.…

    • 859 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Lawrence V. Wade

    • 1313 Words
    • 6 Pages

    He also points out that we still have laws prohibiting bigamy, prostitution, obscenity, and child pornography, which restrict a persons right to make their own choices in their sex lives. He finds the courts claim to be totally hypocritical. In my opinion, sodomy is a fundamental right, and it is "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and traditions." It may have a history of being illegal, but it is not the government's right to restrict sodomy based purely on morals. Bestiality and adult incest, as I mentioned before, have other reasons to illegalize them.…

    • 1313 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    United States V. Eichman was very different because unlike the Texas law in Johnson’s case the federal law does not target expressive conduct on the basis of the content of the message. 6. Justice William Brennan stated, “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” I completely agree with Justice Brennan’s thoughts on how the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violates an individual first amendment right because of how others feel. The courts believed that the federal law goes well beyond this by “criminally prescribing expressive conduct because of its likely communicative…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Ch. 5 Civil Liberties

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Another type of speech is symbolic speech which is an act that conveys a political message. Even though the court reasoned the same protection as real speech woud open the door to permitting all manner of illegal actions if perpetrator meant thereby to send a message you can 't just ordinarily claim that an illegal act should be protected because that action is meant to convey a political message. An example of this could be Reno v. ACLU in 1997, a law that banned sending indecent material to minors over the internet because its unconstitutional and it was proved unconstitutional because “indecent” is too vague and broad a term. Many people know the language of the First Amendment though many are not aware of how complex the legal interpretations of these provisions have become. The First Amendment has two part and the first part know as the free-exercsie clause is a little more clearer than the second part but still very confusing.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    To resolve this issue, they came to the conclusion that obscenity could be constitutionally regulated because obscene material was without, “redeeming social importance”. As a result of this deduction, a requirement of having no literary, scientific, or artistic value was added to the obscenity standard. Even with this amplified/elaborated standard, the court was still unable to cap the influx in obscenity cases. In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, a book titled Fanny Hill, had been found to fit the first two characterizations of obscenity, by appealing to prurient interest and being patently offensive. However, the court could find no evidence that the book lacked social value and therefore, could only be labeled obscene if it were marketed for prurient appeal.…

    • 1234 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    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.” Freedom of Speech is one of the core values that is proudly embedded in Americans. Although, some people wonder if there should be limits to this right that Americans have, Freedom of Speech. Many citizens are against different forms of hate speech, yet still understand that hate speech is protected under the first amendment. Hate speech is a way for people to express themselves and defend what they believe in. If the United States were to put…

    • 1552 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The 1st Amendment was constructed to protect unpopular speech such as flag burning, hence why it is important to our freedoms. While the act may be disagreeable, it is not illegal and shouldn’t be treated as such. Johnson went on to state that his act was meant to be a political statement not that of vandalism or terrorism. In end the end, if one can not express their political views and resentment to the current political system, then how can their ever be debate. When the case reached the Supreme court,…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The Miller test uses community standards which imposes view of the majority onto views of the minority. This violates the spirit of a liberal reading of the First Amendment because it restricts content and therefore speech. Speech and individual liberty should be protected. Content should not be prohibited, especially when it is based on community standards because they are “unsupported by reasoning of any intelligible kind” and do not rise to the “dignity of moral reasoning that justifies the deprivation of liberty.” Richards also argues that pornography should not be prohibited because it has some redeeming values such as creating ideas that individuals may like, providing a release for individuals who may not have access to sexual partners, and it can also reduce the incidence of certain…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays