Video
Written Component
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to free speech: a key to American democracy. The First Amendment was primarily created to protect American citizens from a totalitarian government. As disagreements heightened between Great Britain and the colonies, Jefferson became one of the key American revolutionaries fighting for the representation of those being silenced in governmental decisions. Even before the formation of the United States Constitution, Jefferson was no stranger to directly advocating for free speech.. Free speech was a huge priority to Jefferson as he began to design the framework for the United States, thus, leading to the First Amendment.
However, in a modern democracy, there are incidents where the First Amendment can come into question. The events of January 6th, 2021, at the United States Capitol have ignited a heated debate about whether former President Donald Trump can be held accountable for his role in inciting the storm on Capitol Hall. Essentially, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause protects people’s rights to express their opinions, ideas, and beliefs without fear of government censorship. It covers various forms of expression, such as speech, press, assembly, and petition. This timeless right ensures that citizens can engage in public discourse, challenge authority, and freely express differing opinions. However, there are instances where the first amendment’s protection can be taken away. For example, there’s an Incitement exception which states that if speech is used to incite violence it would no longer be protected by the first amendment. This clause plays heavily into the ongoing debate of the accountability of Donald Trump. His actions leading up to the January 6th incident have been a subject of intense debate. There are two main perspectives each utilizing the first amendment to aid their argument, here are the two sides:
Incitement and Responsibility:
One viewpoint states that Trump’s accusation of election fraud, his “Stop the Steal” rally before the storming of capital hall, and his refusal to accept the election results created the atmosphere that led to five people being killed during the violence and many more being injured. People that believe Trump should be held accountable argue that his words and actions broke the incitement exception and therefore were no longer protected by the first amendment, as he encouraged his followers to engage in unlawful behavior. They argue that Trump, as a public figure and the President at the time, had a responsibility to use his platform responsibly and promote peaceful resolutions.
Protected Political Speech:
Others argue that Trump’s claims, although controversial and provocative, could be classified under protected political speech. They strongly emphasize that the First Amendment holds the right to express strong opinions and engage in heated political discourse. Supporters of this perspective claim that holding Trump accountable would set a dangerous model for restricting free speech. They strongly emphasize the importance of protecting political discourse, even if it includes statements that some may find objectionable. On top of this they argue that no direct statements asking for his supporters to storm capitol hill, were made by Trump. I believe that Trump should be held accountable for his actions because although he did not directly state that his supporters should attack, he did imply it by saying that this was a “test of strength.” In conclusion, the debate surrounding the accountability of Donald Trump for the events of January 6th reflects the complexities of applying the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause.
Tags: bill-of-rights, constitution, first-amendment, free-speech, kieran, kieran-constitution-project, project
11 Responses to “Kieran Constitution Project”
c26mb1
Kieran– I like your video! I think that your images could have been more numerous, bu the ones you had were fairly well-chosen and matched up with your voice over. My question is: how should the scope of protected speech be defined and what types of speech fall outside the realm of constitutional protection? For example, how does social media intersect with the First Amendment?
Isabella
Hi Kieran, I liked the video! Do you think that the First Amendment would benefit from having an amendment stating where the line is for when something has gone “too far” in terms of free speech?
Augie
Great work Kieran — I really like your animations. Do you believe the free speech clause should be amended slightly to better fit modern day?
c26sk1
Nice video, Kieran. I was wondering what are some other examples when this amendment was tested in history? Was there ever any action taken to change it?
c26pt@dalton.org
I like how you talked about the 2 different sides of how far the protection of the first amendment goes using a recent example. What does the Storm of Capitol Hall reveal about that complexity?
Amalia L.
I thought the digital/animated format that was used was very visually interesting and engaging. Bringing in current events was also very interesting and I thought it helped to make the ideas of this amendment more clear for the modern perspective. I wonder about how individuals moralities and intentions could pose greater conflict in the future.
c26kc
Do you think that the first amendments language is too vague?
Sophie Saxl
I loved how you related the concept of free speech, one that we so often take for granted, to a very nuanced and relevant topic with the capitol riots. It was very effective. I also liked your background music a lot.
Jacob Sorett
I liked your presentation and the formatting you did on it. One question I have is why Trump is being liable for the riot the focus instead of the people who committed the action?
zeran
v good incorporation of modern examples to explain content better
background music choice is dodgy ngl but overall w video
Campbell Langdon
I love the animation and think your presentation medium of the energy in the background with other images at the forefront is excellent. However, some of the images/videos are blurry and some of the words are barely legible.
What other instances of social media challenging traditional beliefs of what the first amendment means?