Close analysis of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ approach to the 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and press reveals a changing conclusion. The amendment that Holmes is associated with reads as such, “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.” Some people, however, see protected speech as something else. Holmes himself defines the law as, “Prophecies of what the court will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law (The Path of Law-OWH).” Written in 1897, this phrase serves as an excellent lens through which to view Holmes’ evolving approach to free speech. The man served as an American Supreme Court justice from 1902 through 1932. During this tenure he wrote countless opinions on nearly every facet of constitutional law. His prose read more like the philosopher he was at heart. His father was a writer of historical significance, and for a great portion of the life of Holmes Jr., the fame of his father eclipsed that of the own. One of the great goals of Holmes’ life was to distinguish himself with the same degree of accolade his father had attained (White-6.). His contributions to areas of free speech and press would provide him with the place in history he desired. In the end, the journey would leave Holmes as a protector of the 1st amendment, but his initial jurisprudence was quite restrictive on the individuals right to speak what he wills without fear of punishment. When one reads the above-mentioned definition of the law according to the Jurist, they should not be surprised that ... ... middle of paper ... ...olmes." 9 June 1922. Box 14, Folder 12, Harvard Law School Library. Holmes, Jr., Oliver. The Common Law. New York, Ny.Dover Publications, 1991. Holmes, Jr., Oliver. The Path of the Law. New York, Ny. Kessinger, 2004. Hand, Learned. "Letters From Learned Hand to Oliver Wendell Holmes." 22 June 1918. Box 43, Folder 30, Harvard Law School Library. Pound, Roscoe. “Interest of Personality.” Harvard Law Review 28 (1928). Rabban, David M. Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years. New York: The University of Cambridge P, 1997 Court Cases Cited Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919) Frohwerk v. U.S., 249 U.S. 204 (1919) Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917) Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907) Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
The first amendment is being abused by more people now than ever before. People like to shout, “First Amendment” when they find themselves in a controversial situation because of certain things they wrote or spoke about. People are being less responsible for their actions and are blaming the constitution for their slip-ups. In “Free-Speech Follies” by Stanley Fish, Fish addresses the First Amendment issue. Fish claims that people use the First Amendment to try to get themselves out of trouble or criticism and that they need to start being responsible for their actions and need to start having a sense of judgment.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., delivered a judgment that established guidelines for evaluating the limits of free speech. In Schenck’s case, Court had to decide whether the First Amendment protected his words, even though it might have had the power to cause opposition to the draft. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The Court concluded that because Schenck's speech was intended to create opposition to the draft, he was not protected by the First Amendment.
In the 1920’s a heightened suspicion of communist activities on domestic American land arose, the Red Scare. Benjamin Gitlow, a prominent member of the Socialist party, was arrested and convicted on charges of violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 during these drastic times. What was his violation? The publication and circulation of the Left-Wing Manifesto, a mere pamphlet, in the United States was his infringement. He appealed the decision on the basis that it violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press and it was passed on to the United States Supreme Court. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Gitlow on the basis of Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Gitlow v. New York exemplifies the protection of civil right and liberties with judicial activism.
Friedman, L. S. (2010). What Is the State of Civil Liberties in the United States?. Civil liberties (pp. 11-49). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
Peter, Sagal. “Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” 25 March. 2013. PSB. PBS.com 14 Nov.
From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent First Amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us. Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which 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 the press”.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
Should people be able to choose for themselves? Oliver Wendell Holmes said: Words can be weapons... the question in every case is whether the words 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.8 The basic idea on the Freedom of Speech is counteract whatever one says or does. With the Nazi march in 1977, instead of protesting, have an anti-
The Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is often called “the freedom of speech.” It provides a multitude of freedoms: of religion, of speech, of the press, to peacefully assemble, to petition the government. Religious freedom is vitally important to this day because it eliminates the problem of religious conflicts. Historically, many people died for their beliefs because their government only allowed and permitted one religion. T...
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
The Free Speech Movement protested the ban of on campus political activities and speeches. Thousands of students became involved in this protest and together they displayed how much power there was in student activism. In the fall of 1964, the Regents of the university enforced a new ban that blocked students from holding political activities at Sproul Plaza on Bancroft and Telegraph. This was unsettling to them because the Bancroft Strip was a key location that students occupied when trying to reach out, raise funds and speak up for what they believed in. Previous policies suggested that student life outside of the university wouldn't be tampered or interfered with, so this was an outrage to the students of UC Berkeley. When the regents took time to revise and tweak the ban, students were still unhappy with the decision, so a sit in at Sproul Hall was organized and it lasted for nearly 10 hours.
Many people will speak freely and act as opposition and it is a noble ideal rather than a practical necessity. Walter argues about the freedom of people and how they used it. Most people talk about freedom as a right but others matter of toleration They have to tolerate the opinion of other people making them feel like the freedom of speech isn't worth it..In 1939 an article was published in The Atlantic Monthly by Walter Lippmann named”The Indispensable Opposition”. This article was about the freedom of speech in the society we live in making a demanding view for the rights in the society.. Walter Lippmann used ethos, a simple sentence, and a antithesis to make up his argument.
Gearon, L. (2006). Freedom of expression and human rights: Historical, literary and political contexts. Brighton [u.a.: Sussex Academic.
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...