Two ideas that were similar and that were shared by the sources are that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Source #3 and source #4 explain how they would harm innocent people and would accomplish nothing positive. Source #3 proves that it is good for us to have freedom to say what we want but that there should also be limits to what we have the right to say. Source #3 states, “ The First Amendment to the United States Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech. But what if a person were to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater when there was no fire at all ? The decision to do such a thing would put innocent people in a harm’s way while accomplishing nothing positive.” What is stated above shows that it would harm people by them assuming there is really fire and panic when there actually isn’t anything. Source #4 explains how all our freedoms are important and how we can hurt …show more content…
Source #1 is open to interpretation because they changed they way they thought in the year of 399 B.C.E. Based on a situation that had occurred, with a Bill of Rights created the First amendment. That proves that they were open to change because they wanted to have individual freedoms and by creating the First Amendment and they made a change. Source #1 states, “The writings of philosophers such as Voltaire, the Englishman John Locke, and the American Benjamin Franklin helped propel revolutions in favor of individual freedoms.” Source #2 also explains how they were open to change and added to the First Amendment & the war threats. Source #2 states, “ He also proposed laws to make the nation more secure from foreign threats”. Also sourse #2 states, “ In other words, the Sedition Act directly limited freedoms allowed in the First Amendment.” The quotes states above show how the First Amendment was open to interpretation by the changes that were made on the situations that were
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.
Thomas Jefferson's strict interpretation not only stretched on political views, but religious views as well. Creating the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom, Jefferson gave states the right to make those decisions, and the federal government had no say in religion (1). Politically, Jefferson was of strict interpretation, yet he did through-out his presidential terms made loose interpretations of the Constitution. This was mainly shown in the purchase of Louisana. At first, Jefferson wanted only New Orleans to keep the mouth of the Mississippi out of French possesion. If that would fail, he was even willing to make an alliance with Britain. When hearing that the United States had bought all of the Louisana Territory, Jefferson soon began to fret over whether it was unconstitutional (a loose interpretation). When Jefferson first took office, he appointed a new Treasury Secretary Gallatin, and kept most of the Federalist policies laid down by Alexander Hamilton in place. All the ideas the Democratic-Republicans were against, Thomas Jefferson kept all of them except for the excise tariff. Against war, Jefferson decided to size down the army during his administration. But the pasha of Tripoli declared an outrageous amout of money by the United States, and with the United States saying no, cutdown the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consolate (4). Jefferson was forced to go against his views, and build up the army against the North African Barbary States in the First Barbary War (4). And last, but not least, Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 not only changed from strict to loose interpretations, but changed New Englanders minds as well (1)(5).
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
As the philosophical beliefs of the Democrat- Republican and the Federalist Party evolved, many changes sprung in U.S. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison became loose interpreters because of the different obstacles and opportunities they faced along their way. On the other hand, Federalists somewhat became strict constructionist because that is what benefited them at that time. The characterization of the two parties from the early 1800s was not any longer accurate and a new society evolved.
The prominent figures at the time, such as Jefferson, realized this; Jefferson states in his letter to Madison that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences.” (Document E). The first part of Jefferson’s statement is plain and obvious: every decent government owes its people a Bill of Rights. The quote “rest on inferences”, however, means that a government, or rather any higher authority, should not attempt to guess what the people want. Instead, the government should represent the people, and ask them what they want. That is what common practices such as voting, and statements such as “no taxation without representation” embody. Nevertheless, in this letter Jefferson recognizes the Bill of Rights as a desideratum. Additionally, in Document C- Federalist Papers #38 - Madison reports that “A fourth concurs to the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity.” That statement illustrates what exactly the American people were asking for. They did not call for complete abandonment of political interests in favor of social freedoms, they wanted the State as a whole to have a set of rights. Also, the statement includes the words “political capacity”, which is a reference to the aforementioned notion that politicians and political parties should be limited in their power and should not be more important that the people. Rather, politics and socialization should stand on equal ground. Lastly, Document H exhibits four amendments from the Bill of Rights. Examining the wording of these amendments reveals how they specifically targeted the complains of the people and rectified them. Amendment I
"The words of the first amendment are simple and majestic: 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.' The proposed constitutional amendment would undermine that fundamental liberty."
In opposition to Hamilton?s Federalist Party, Jefferson who believed in strict interpretation of the Constitution. Jefferson anticipated that everything should be done through strict evaluation and a laws should abide by what is written. Although Jefferson was not a Federalist, he was also not an Antifederalist; he was a Democratic-Republican, a composite of the two. Jefferson vindicated that all powers not enumerated by the Constitution are obtained by the States. Issues between the two groups lead to the imperative question: should a strong central government be established or should each individual state have control? The attacks of the succeeding debate and public scurrility led to the Sedition Act. This act prohibited intermingling and conspiracy against the America government and the correspondence of scandalous and malicious writings against the government or its officials, under penalty of a fine or imprisonment. Succeeding the Sedition Act, the Republicans turned to the states arguing that federal government had strode past their powers; the powers delegated to it by the states through the Constitution. Therefore the states acquired the right to repeal the act.
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”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
The debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 revealed bitter controversies on a number of issues that had been developing since the penning of the Constitution. The writers of the document knew that over time the needs of the nation and its people would change, and therefore provided for its amendment. But by not expressly delegating powers to specific organizations, whether the federal government, state governments, or the people themselves, they inadvertently created a major problem in the years to follow: Constitutional interpretation.Shortly after the Constitution's ratification, two distinct camps formed, each believing in opposite manners of interpretation. One group, the Federalists, led by the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, thought that the Constitution should be interpreted very loosely. He claimed that the Constitution contained powers other than those delegated or enumerated. These unspecified powers were implied powers.
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...
The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is often considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it guarantees the citizens of United States the essential personal freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. Thanks to the rights granted by the First Amendment, Americans are able to live in a country where they can freely express themselves, speak their mind, pray without interference, protest in peace and where their opinions are taken into consideration, which is something not many other nationalities have the fortune of saying. The Founding Fathers were the framers of the Constitution of the U.S., and the responsible for the elaboration of the First Amendment. The majority of the Founding Fathers were enlightenment thinkers who were in love with liberty, and thought that basic political rights were inevitable for man’s nature. After having experienced the tyranny from their mother countries, the Founding Fathers carefully constructed the Constitution of the United States in a way where tyranny was avoided and a government for the people, by the people and of the people was developed, which is clearly reflected in the Constitution. At the time of inception of the United States, the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment in order to ensure that the government would not interfere with Americans’ basic civil rights. The rights outlined on the First Amendment were considered so important by these leaders that many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United Sates until there was a conjecture of amendments that would protect individual rights in the future.
America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion recommends a practice that is contrary to public morals, such as polygamy, Congress may prohibit such a practice (Weidner, Daniel, 2002). The people of the United States also have the right to assemble peaceably under the First Amendment. The only restriction comes from the word peaceably. Assembly may not be prevented, as long as the proper authorities have reasonable assurance that the meeting will be peaceful (Weidner, Daniel, 2002).
In the late 1900’s the clear and present danger clause was added to the constitution which added small print to the first amendment. The clause was added to stop people from opposing the draft and United States war efforts when entering world war one. The clause states that if speech or writing poses a clear and present danger to others than it is not permitted under the first amendment. Under the same principal, you can’t scream “fire” in a crowded theater without consequences.
The 1st Amendment forbids Congress from enacting laws that would regulate speech or press before publication or punish after publication. At various times many states passed laws in contradiction to the freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. However broadcast has always been considered a special exemption to free speech laws for two reasons. 1) the most important reasons is the scarcity of spectrum and the 2) is the persuasiveness of the medium. Because radio and TV come into the house, and may be heard or seen by unsupervised children, the government feels a special responsibility to protect the American people. As Herbert Hoover said to, "doublegaurd them."
The Bill of Rights has gained existence since December 15, 1791. Being supported mainly by anti-federalists, the Bill of Rights upheld what was needed to protect individual liberty. From the ratification we have our first ten amendments. The most important and used today is the first amendment. The amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting… petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment is very powerful but cannot be overly abused. Over time the freedom of speech has been constricted. There are many court cases that display the limitation of free speech. Environmental factors and certain materials are not covered in free speech. To understand our rights and know how and when our rights are limited, we must