Entitlement To Free Speech Analysis

Better Essays
Under the Constitution the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law 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.” The right to speak freely archived in the First Amendment is a sacred assurance, as well as an inevitable piece part of the democratic government and independence, which are key qualities in our society. “Censorship,” according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “is an almost irresistible impulse when you know you are right.” That is the reason why an American citizen 's entitlement to free speech should be held as the highest excellence and any restriction of the right to speak freely should not be permitted, …show more content…
In a different World War I decision issued only eight months after Schenck, Abrams v. United States, five Russian-born immigrants had been convicted of distributing allegedly rebellious flyers that were condemning the U.S. government for sending troops into Russia. A majority of the court upheld the convictions. Justice John H. Clarke in his majority opinion followed Holmes’s reasoning in Schenck, taking note that the pamphlets had been dispersed “at the supreme crisis of the war” and that they were “an attempt to defeat the war plans of the Government." Thus, Clarke concluded that the pamphlets introduced a clear and present danger. Holmes dissented from the majority decision and adjusted his previous account of the clear- and-present-danger test. Worried around a rising wave of craziness that could potentially encroach on free expression, Holmes contended for a more extensive interpretation of the clear- and-present-danger standard, composing that speech could be penalized if it "produces or is intended to produce a clear and imminent danger that will bring about … certain substantive evils that the United States … may seek to prevent. All opinions, he contended, must be protected "unless they imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law." Holmes believed that in …show more content…
In 1938, United States v. Carolene Products, the Court measured the legality of a federal ban on a brand of milk. Justice Harlan Stone 's explanation in the opinion stated that when any law has the potential to be in conflict with any of the initial ten Amendments (the preferred freedoms) the law must not be accepted to be constitutional, and Justices had not any more important and sacred obligation on the Court than to protect individual freedoms. This constitutional interpretation, known as preferred freedoms, would be grasped in the 1939 case Schneider v. State of New Jersey. In this situation, the Court decided that a law limiting public distribution of leaflets and literature with the end goal of keeping roads spotless and free of literature was in conflict with the First Amendment. Justice Owen Roberts, writing for the majority, decided “the purpose to keep the streets clean is insufficient to justify an ordinance which prohibit a person rightfully on a public street from handing literature to one willing to receive it.” This decision mirrored the truth that justices were starting to swing toward the preferred freedoms test. For a considerable length of time from that point, the Court would be essentially a safeguard of individual rights, and government interruption and limitation on speech would need to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    In fact, the First Amendment added an express denial of any such power. Also, why would the government and the people go through all of the effort of passing the Sedition Act of 1798 if the 1st amendment only protects people from prior restraint, the English common law. If this were true, then there would be no need to enact anything else because then the act would add nothing to the laws that were already put in place. Thus, the first amendment is meant to protect the people from all branches of government, so they cannot limit our opinions. The Sedition Act of 1798 was put in place to combat and further the power and role of the government since they had no power over the press…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In examining the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment one has to look at the Bill of Right which it has been used to incorporate. The original Constitution was devoid of a Bill of Right guaranteeing citizens’ rights. The exclusion of the Bill of Right almost derailed the ratification of the Constitution as it was deemed essential. James Madison drafted 7 out of 10 of the Bill of Rights. Madison proposed language that would have made the Bill of Rights binding on the states; that verbiage did not make it into the final amendments.…

    • 775 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Chief Reason Speech

    • 1170 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I; amend XIV, sec 1). Speech that aggrievedly defames, invades privacy, causes panic, provokes retaliatory violence or incites crimes is and ought to be restricted under the Millian principle that law is to protect citizens from harm, and punish those who harm others (Feinburg 1). The circumstance of speech is of profound importance when considering the quality of protection speech receives under law. We must also note that private institutions, like Berea College, are not legally obligated to follow constitutional law in the same fashion as…

    • 1170 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Freedom Of Free Speech

    • 1355 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Mills argued in On Liberty “...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.” In a democratic society, freedom of speech plays an important role. Freedom of speech guarantees the citizens to participate in the democracy, and a democratic society isn’t stable if there is no free speech in the administration sector. Restrictions on free speech may cause harm to democratic life, and also contradicts the principles that founded democracy, that the government shouldn’t impose any more than necessary restrictions on individual rights. In Australia, the constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of speech, however, there is meant to be an implied freedom of speech in the constitution. Freedom of speech is thought to be essential in a democratic society.…

    • 1355 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Substantive Due Process Clause keeps the government from violating certain fundamental constitutional rights of individuals or parties. The Supreme court relied on the Substantive Due Process clause to overturn the previous courts ruling and argued that the ruling violated the S. Due Process Clause, as opposed to the Equal Protections Clause. However, Justice Sandra Day O ' Connor argued in favor of the Equal Protections Clause to overturn the state laws against sodomy. The Court recognized that the privacy rights of consenting adults cannot be violated as this violates the Constitution. You would first file a complaint with the court and deliver a copy to the defendant.…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    By any means the Federal courts shouldn 't be able to interpret the U.S. Constitution, they should see it as a living document in which the meaning changes with the times. The courts shouldn 't interpreted the constitution in its original meaning. As the times change and things are viewed differently as they once were, people 's views on things change with the time. Why should we allow the courts to constitution when everyone sees it differently. The issue of judicial restraint vs. judicial activism is that judicial activism* is generally refers to judges who allow their personal and political views to affect their interpretation of the law, and, consequently, their decisions in important cases.…

    • 978 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Stolen Valor Case Study

    • 467 Words
    • 2 Pages

    According to the Stolen Valor act it only applies to speech. There is nothing protecting it from what is being said, even if it might be damageable or even a lie. Overall the court decided it is easier to reverse something that is said about oneself rather than something that could ruin a person’s reputation. It is believed that this act is unnecessary, and also set a dangerous precedent. It would starts a chain reaction, the court thought if this was a law then later there would be a law against lying, or saying anything that might be slightly false.…

    • 467 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    What are the limitations if we do not have true freedom? Even though, we value freedom of speech for four main reasons, it is up to us how far should our freedom should extend and that there are a few limitations to our right to freedom of speech. Americans have appreciated the freedom of speech, since the founding fathers started this great nation. The United States, being a democracy, is a government where the people influence how the nation is run. You cannot expect to run a country when the voices of the people to not be heard or restricted, there would be no democracy if that were to happen.…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Federalists are going to invoke the Elastic Clause, which gives Congress all the necessary and proper power to execute its duties. What is “necessary and proper” to some might be unconstitutional to another. The Necessary and Proper Clause is going to be invoked by the Federalists, to do things that the Constitution does not give them the right to do. Republicans are going to have an entirely different take, and they want to restrain the powers of government, and they are not going to invoke the Elastic Clause, but invoke the Reserve Clause. The Reserve Clause suggests that any power not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited by the federal government are reserved for the states of the people.…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays