First Amendment Essay Research Paper The first

First Amendment Essay, Research Paper

The first amendment of the US Constitution states that .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... Ever since

the beginning of the Supreme Court, cases have come up time and time again that

challenge this amendment, or require the justices to interpret this amendment.

Looking back at all the cases heard, it is obvious that the US Supreme Court

have changed their interpretations many times. As society has changed, and the

public perception of freedom of speech has changed, so has the way the Supreme

Court looks at the first amendment. It seems that in one case, their granting

freedom of speech and claiming it is absolute, and then the next case their

taking free speech away, saying that all rules have exceptions. The best way to

analyze the inconsistencies or the US Supreme Court.s decisions in free speech

cases is to look into key cases on both the Supreme Court granting, and limiting

free speech. Three main cases of the least century in which they limited free

speech were Schenck v. United States (1919), CBS v. Democratic National

Committee (1973), and City Council of Los Angeles v. Vincent. In Schenck v.

United States, Schenck and Company were convicted of violating the Espionage Act

of 1917, a Federal law which, among other things, made it a crime to obstruct

government draft recruiting and enlistment efforts. Schenck printed 15,000

leaflets, many of which were to be mailed to draftees. On one of the sides of

this leaflet were printed (among others) the following phrases: "Do not

submit to intimidation", "Assert your Rights", and "If you

do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage

rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United

States to retain." Schenck was arrested for passing along this information.

The judge who wrote the decision, Judge Holmes, wrote 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. It is a question of

proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in

time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not

be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected

by any constitutional right. It seems that any way you look at this case, it is

violating the free speech. Today, this case is referred to as the "falsely

shouting fire in a [theater" case. But what does doing that have to do with

notifying Americans of their god-given constitutional rights. It seems that in

this case, Schenck was deprived of his free speech rights. In CBS v. Democratic

National Committee, the Business Executives’ Move for Vietnam Peace (BEM)

complained to the that a radio station Washington, DC had refused to sell it

time to broadcast a series of one-minute spot announcements expressing BEM views

on Vietnam. Four months later, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) asked the

FCC for a ruling in this case, since it intended to purchase time from radio and

television stations to present party views, but knew that its prior experience

in this area made it clear that it would "encounter considerable difficulty

- if not total frustration of its efforts" without a ruling. Both parties

lost – the FCC rejected the notion of the right of an individual or organization

to air "editorial advertisements" on the public airwaves. This

decision, however, was reversed by a Court of Appeals, a decision which was

itself reversed by the Supreme Court in this famous case. This is a case which

illuminates all too clearly the nature of First Amendment "rights"

that we are supposed to have as Americans. Looking at this case, it seems that

the free speech rights of a broadcaster is snuffing out the free speech rights

of others. This is another case where people are being deprived of their free

speech rights. In March 1979, Roland Vincent was a candidate for election to the

Los Angeles City Council. A group of his supporters entered into a contract with

a political sign service to fabricate and post signs with Vincent’s name on

them. They produced many colorful cardboard signs and attached them to utility

poles at various locations. The signs’ message was: ‘Roland Vincent – City

Council.’ Acting under the authority of section 28.04 of the Los Angeles

Municipal Code, Municipal employees removed all posters attached to utility

poles and similar objects covered by the ordinance, including Vincent.s signs.

Vincent brought this case all the way to the Supreme Court, ther

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать