Personal Opinions

In my opinion, these freedoms are what make America different from other nations, it establishes that we are independent and that people should be aloud to say what they want and do what they want without being silenced. Many people abuse these rules to hurt people and get away with it, or leak private information to the media, without consequence, which i believe is stupid. But, again, it is what makes us different, and we can't have special privileges for some people above others. I would say more good has come out of these freedoms than bad. I can only be thankful that I live in this country with such great freedoms.

Freedom of the Press

Freedom of the Press is one of our freedoms that is closely related to the Freedom of Speech, like many others. But, it allows us to get information another way, by media. In today's society, common ways to get information are magazines, radio, television, and the internet, but the only reason we can get biased and unbiased information like this is because the government won't interfere, due to Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the Press is defined as "the right to produce newspapers, magazines, and other printed material without governmental restriction and subject only to laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc."

Prior Restraint is what other nations use to censor information before it is published. The Supreme Court has issued that they may censor information if it is directly a matter of national security. In 1931, an "acid-tongued" editor of a Minneapolis paper wrote that local officials were "gangsters" and "grafters." The newspaper was halted for a time until matters could be resolved in the Court. A four out of five vote took place, ending up that it was unconstitutional to halt them because it involved prior restraint. The Supreme Court uses the ruling in this case to define their view on prior restraint, they stress that press is free of government censorship.

Other rules that have caused controversy are Gag Orders, Shield Laws, and Equal Time Doctrine.

Gag Orders are restrictions on posting certain types or information pending a court case. In 1976, a man killed six members of a family, the judge said that the material of the case was to sensitive to be release prior to the case, so he placed a gag order on the local press. The gag order was challenged and later ruled that it was prior restraint and was unconstitutional.

Shield Laws are laws that give reporters some protection from being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in a state case. In 1972, reporters were arguing that they have the right to keep certain information secret, the Court ruled that they have no such special right. The Court added that some special exemptions must come from Congress and the states.

Equal Time Doctrine has to do with radio and television, they must give a certain amount of time for all candidates for public office, and also are able to be punished for using obscene or indecent language on air. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) monitor communications because it is not the same as newspapers and magazines. They control the airwaves by making it a requirement for all stations to buy a three year license to air broadcasts, they cannot censor broadcasts, but they can require that stations observe certain standards while presenting programs.

Freedom of the Press is evolving with the time, as technology evolves so too do the ways we deliver information, giving more reasons to start cases with the Court. It will only get more complicated as the years progress farther into the technological age.

Freedom of Assembly

The First Amendment says "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Freedom of Assembly grants the right for people to peacefully petition anything they please, even the government. This freedom is closely related to the Freedom of Speech, without that, they would not be able to say what they wanted to, but they would not be able to assemble to say what they wanted without the Freedom of Assembly. Also, without the right to assemble, there would be no political parties or groups to influence the government.

One of the first major decisions on the Freedom of Assembly was that under the First Amendment, "peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime." This arose in 1937 when a man, Dirk DeJonge, was convicted because he held a meeting sponsored by the communist party. He said he was innocent because he didn't speak of or do anything criminal, only speak of matters of public concern. The Court unanimously turned his conviction, and decided that the right of assembly is as important as free speech.

It is very hurtful what can be done with these freedoms, they can cause emotional distress to many. In 1977 the American Nazi party went to a small town full of Holocaust survivors, they marched there to get their points across, the residents were furious. They demanded that the marchers be made to stop, so the town told them they had to pay a $300,000 parade permit to march there. But they said that having to pay for that would be violating their right to free speech and assembly. The Court ruled that it would be unconstitutional to stop them.

Picketing is a form of assembly besides sit ins, speeches, or marches, it is also a form that has been debated on for years. Picketing is when people get together in a line, called a picket line, in front of an organization or business to persuade people not to go there. Most people won't pass a picket line, which then deprives the business of the customers it needs. It was ruled in 1950, that you could not picket to force people to do something, only to influence them, and that you couldn't picket a business unless it was a labor dispute.

Freedom of Assembly is very important, and many dont realize how useful it is. But many people also use it for bad reasons, in the end it is all part of the freedoms placed on us by our forefathers to do with as we see fit.

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech was made so that everyone could speak their mind, and no matter what they were saying, the government wouldn't shut them down. Although many people think Freedom of Speech is just talking, there are many different forms of speech. But what forms of speech are there? There are three forms of speech, Pure Speech, Speech Plus, and Symbolic Speech.

Pure speech is the most common form, it is the speech delivered privately in one's home or out to a crowd. The Court provides the most protection from the government to this form of speech, because it only uses the power to express words and ideas.

Speech plus is the form of speech that is demonsrating or marching actions, and because it involves actions, it is more vulnerable to government restrictions that weren't covered in the pure speech. The restrictions placed on this form were that they could not disturb traffic, block sidewalks, illegally trespass, or put people in danger.

Symbolic speech involves the use of actions or symbols, and not words to get the point across. Protest arm bands, buttons, and wearing specific colors of clothing to get your point across are all actions people to do express their right to use symbolic speech. The Court has the most trouble deciding points against symbolic speech, there are more reversals on decisions in this form of speech than any other. Since this is not the use of words and only symbols, it is hard for the Court to decide whether it is aloud to be done.

Besides the three forms of free speech, there are also forms that the First Amendment does not protect from, such as, seditious speech and defamatory speech. Seditious speech is, in definition, "urging resistance to outlaw authority or advocating the overthrow of the government." The Court has outlawed this form of speech and it is not protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment also does not protect defamatory speech, or the false speech that damages a person's good name, reputation, or character. Both forms of defamatory speech, written and spoken, are illegal.

It became a problem when the Court did not know what was protected by the First Amendment, so they created three tests to create limits on free speech.

(1) The "clear and present danger" test

(2) The bad tendency doctrine

(3) The preferred position doctrine

There are also many other things that aren't specified in a form of speech that are not protected such as fighting words that are so insulting that they provoke physical violence. Speech is one of the most difficult things to keep track of, it is constantly changing, and people find ways past the rules, making more problems for the Court to fix. Although there are many problems with it, Freedom of Speech is so important to have for the stability of our country.

Freedom of Religion

In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson said that the First Ammendment's freedom of religion was created to "create a wall of seperation between Church and State." This makes us different from other countries that have state-supported religion, such as Great Britain. There are two parts to the freedom of religion section of the First Ammendment, however, one part is the establishment clause, the other is the free exercise clause. The establishment clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion." The free exercise clause states that "Congress cannot prohibit free exercise of religion."

There have been cases where the government has needed to step in between religious and state matters, because they could not be together. A court case, Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, the state was paying for buses to take children to religious schools, it was said that the state was supporting religion by doing this. The court ruled in favor of the school, because the students were being benefitted by this, so the state was not directly supporting religion. Since 1971, the courts have used a three part test that decides if state aid to a religious school is constitutional.

(1) "Must have a clear secular, non-religious purpose."

(2) "in its main effect neither advance nor inhibit religion."

(3) "avoid 'exsessive government entanglement with religion'."

In 1948, Champaign, Illinois, Public Schools had religion teachers came in every week to teach certain students about religion. The Court found this unconstitutional because they were using tax-supported classrooms for religious purposes. Although, 4 years later, the Court accepted a New York City program where religious teachers taught religion to students, but only if it was away from the public school. It was constitutional if the religious study was held in a private facility, not a public one.

Religion and state cannot mix according to our First Ammendment, but it would seem that it is hard to tell what is mixing the two, and what isn't.