The First Amendment

The 1st Amendment application is extremely important in these situations in that it allows the government to stop and halt speech that could be extremely detrimental to the security of the United States or its people, which, in today’s world, could prove vital very soon. The 1st amendment has obviously played a very large role in the history of the United States; by applying it to a host of different court cases, the government has been able to establish precedent and consistency (for the most part) regarding various situations that involve the free speech component of the 1st Amendment. Today, there is an abundance of issues regarding free speech, some still looking for an answer, others already having been established based on earlier rulings

In certain situations, it is very clear as to what constitutes being acceptable speech on social media, and what does not. In such cases as United States v. Elonis, speech made over the internet meant to incite a serious threat, or be taken as a serious threat, is not protected as free speech. What happens however, when speech online is not threatening in nature, but runs along the lines of limiting individuals like sex offenders access to social media platforms? In February of 2017, the Supreme Court reviewed an argument made for North Carolina to be allowed to bar registered sex offenders form accessing various social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. North Carolina’s largest argument is that this law banning sex offenders from social media is for the protection of minors, not the limiting of expression. Due to the nature with which social has developed as a part of American society, the question that arises is the constitutionality of preventing an individual from so much information that is available. Justices Kagan and Ginsburg don’t seem to think so, as both of them feel that these sorts of limitations and restrictions severely hamper an individual’s ability to function within society. This is an important issues in that it will establish a precedent for the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of North Carolina, then whole integrity

With 2016 seeing one of the most unexpected presidential campaigns in American history, there was bound to be upset individuals on either side of the political spectrum. Once the election was over, and Donald Trump confirmed as the President-Elect, a large majority of the American population rioted. While some of these riots were out of hand and did not fall under 1st Amendment protection, the majority of the population simply took to insulting Trump online. From the language of the Constitution, the people have the right to freedom of political speech, the right to assemble, and the right to announce their grievances and redresses regarding the government, and there is very little preventing them from doing so vice the small amount of exceptions. Every moment someone posts or says something nasty about Trump on Twitter, Facebook, television, etc, they are exercising their 1st Amendment right. It is a rare occurrence now for someone to be jailed for speaking out against the government. This right does not extend solely to comments made about candidates either; the 1st Amendment is very much relevant in that every campaign cycle, individuals are able to donate and support any candidate they please. Within the political spectrum, the 1st Amendment is very relevant; the people have the right to support who they