first

Analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress cannot make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religious beliefs. The clause is part of the Bill of Rights, ten constitutional amendments that listed rights the federal government must protect. It was a natural outgrowth of a long debate about religious freedom in the Thirteen Colonies, where some colonies restricted religion while others, such as Virginia, enabled religious freedom. Founding Fathers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson advocated for religious freedom, which was eventually instated in the First Amendment. 

The plain English interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is that Congress may not pass laws that stop citizens from practicing their religion. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to allow some limitations. The central question for interpreting the clause is to what extent it protects religious actions considered harmful to society. In the case Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that, while a law may not regulate religious beliefs, it can regulate actions that result from those beliefs. The Supreme Court revised the rules in Wisconsin v. Yoder to limit laws that regulate religion to situations where the public interest is “compelling,” meaning it must be absolutely necessary to protect the state or citizens. Further laws and cases have added that regulations on religious actions must use the “least restrictive means,” limiting religious expression as little as possible even if that makes enforcing laws harder. The result of these interpretations is a compromise between total adherence and disregard for the Free Exercise Clause

The debate surrounding the Free Exercise Clause reflects multiple themes from our class and throughout history. The American Constitution, including    a vision of religious tolerance developed by European Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire demonstrates history’s  interconnectedness. The clause also shows how laws reveal values, similar to how the Manden Charter in Mali provided a lens into that society. Finally, the Free Exercise Clause demonstrates the complexities of dealing with  the “Other,” protecting minority rights in the Constitution but allowing old white men with power to limit those protections through court cases.

Personally, when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, I think both abolishment or literal interpretation would be dangerous. Without the clause, the majority could dictate the expression of beliefs of minority groups. A literal interpretation, however, would let people use religion as an excuse and make it impossible to protect society. The only solution is a compromise as the court has attempted to achieve, but it is challenging to find the perfect balance. This difficulty leads to the Supreme Court occasionally allowing unjust violations, like upholding President Trump’s “Muslim Ban” against many majority Muslim countries. It also sometimes allows religious practices that harm people, such as making it legal for employers to deny full healthcare due to religious beliefs in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. While compromises may be complicated and lead to some bad decisions, finding a balance is necessary to create a functioning democracy.

First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, was shaped by several historical forces. One significant influence was the colonial experience of religious persecution and the desire for religious freedom among early settlers. The Founding Fathers, drawing upon Enlightenment ideals, emphasized the importance of individual liberties and limited government power. They sought to establish a system that prevented the government from infringing upon the fundamental rights of its citizens.

The Supreme Court has established that restrictions on speech based on its content, where the government targets the message, are generally unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of content-based restrictions that violate the First Amendment. Such laws distort public debate and undermine the principle of self-governance by allowing the government to control what ideas or information the people can access.

However, there are situations where the government can impose restrictions on speech under a less demanding standard. Certain types of speech have been deemed of “low” First Amendment value and are subject to restrictions, such as defamation, true threats, “fighting words” likely to incite immediate violence, obscenity, child pornography, and commercial advertising. Special relationships to the government, such as government employees or students in public schools, can be subject to content-based restrictions if their speech conflicts with their roles as public officials or students. Content-neutral restrictions, such as those related to noise, traffic, or signage, can be imposed as long as they are “reasonable” and apply to all speakers equally, without favoring specific ideas or messages.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment has become increasingly protective of free expression over time. In the past, blasphemy could be punished, and during World War I, speech promoting crime or condemning the military draft was deemed punishable. However, since the 1920s, the Court has broadened the scope of the First Amendment, providing stronger legal protection for free speech and press rights.

In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court made a landmark decision regarding campaign finance regulations. The Court ruled that political spending by corporations and unions is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. The decision overturned restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates. The ruling was highly controversial, with critics arguing that it opened the door for excessive influence of money in politics and undermined the integrity of the electoral process. Proponents, on the other hand, viewed it as a victory for free speech rights and the ability of individuals, including corporations and unions, to express their political views. The Citizens United decision continues to shape the landscape of campaign finance laws and remains a topic of ongoing debate and discussion.

The significance of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) case lies in its impact on campaign finance regulations and the notion of corporate personhood in American politics. The Supreme Court’s ruling, in this case, held that political spending by corporations and unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, thereby overturning restrictions on corporate campaign expenditures. This decision paved the way for the rise of super PACs (Political Action Committees) and increased the influence of money in politics.

The First Amendment: Free Speech and Freedom of Speech

Video

Written Component

In the constitution, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects Americans freedom of speech. When the Bill of Rights was written in 1789, the American colonies had recently revolted against British rule. Previously, the British Monarchy had controlled the press and saying bad things about the British crown was a crime one that could be punished by imprisonment or death. However, in writing the Constitution, and adapting it with the Bill of Rights, the founding fathers attempted to enshrine important ideals of democracy — that people should be free to say what they wish and the press should be able to criticize public officials — with the First Amendment.

It is important to note that this does not apply to private companies, employers, or landowners. While the amendment refers only that Congress may not restrict freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that this applies to the entire Federal government. Moreover, in the case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also restricts the power of states and local governments. The protections of the First Amendment are not unilateral, however, and there are a few hotly debated exceptions of when free speech is, or is not, protected. Government officials, for example public school teachers, can be punished for certain kinds of speech not endorsed by the government.

Filters not based on the content of a message but rather can be based on some other quality such as noise or other kinds of disruption are sometimes not restricted, like in the case of Turner Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1994) but this is on a varying case by case basis. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can restrict “low” speech. Defamation, threats, obscenities, and misleading advertising all constitute “low” speech that the government regulates.

The Supreme Court is extremely loath to use “low” speech. For example, the 1978 case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie was one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court, wherein the judges defended the freedom of a neo-Nazi group that aimed to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois. The NSPA argued that the Illinois Supreme Court violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment by restricting their right to protest. Today, the First Amendment is still a matter of hot debate.

An example of an important issue regarding the modern day application of the First Amendment arises from campaign donations in politics. The Supreme Court has held that political contributions are “speech” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled the government is allowed to regulate contributions if there is a risk of undue influence in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission (2003) the Court ruled that the government could regulate corporation’s spending on political expenditure. All in all, these issues of free speech and the questions of what kinds of expression the government should, and should not, restrict extend into the present day and can have serious ramifications on everyday life, elections, and more. 

Josie Hsieh – Free Speech in the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

Ratified on December 15, 1791, the Freedom of Speech Clause was imposed as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The clause, which was written alongside laws disclosing matters of establishing and exercising religion and the right to petition the government, is most basically understood to state that that the government cannot convict people or organizations on the basis of what they say or write. However, the First Amendment only protects citizens against government officials and agencies, not private corporations or individuals. Free speech is not a limitless right, but the Constitution never clearly defines its boundaries.

The ambiguity in the use of the terms “speech” and “press” have made the amendment susceptible to controversy, as the vast scope of interpretation of these regulations have resulted in political backlash as to what should be deemed acceptable or not. “Speech” also applies to circumstances of the Internet and most forms of expression. Symbolic speech is also protected, as seen in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) which determined that forcing students to recite the pledge of allegiance violated their first amendment rights, and Texas v. John (1989) that determined that flag burning was not prohibited in the Constitution, and could not be punished.

In most circumstances, decisions on free speech are made based on past court cases and the history of governmental regulation. Political and symbolic speech are regularly safeguarded under the Constitution, as is hate speech. However, over time, specific categories were classified as “low-value”, establishing them as unprotected by the First Amendment. These categories have been deemed non-essential to expression of ideas, but what is within these categories is still subject to debate. Schenck v. The United States (1919) was the first Supreme court case to establish a “low value” category under the conditions of speech that created “clear and present danger”, after Schenck persuaded people to not join the war. 

Following that, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) deemed “fighting words,” face-to-face personal insults which are expected to instigate immediate fights, unprotected, although it is unclear whether Chaplinsky’s insults could actually incite a fight today. Defamation was instated as unprotected in 1964, after the New York Times was charged for containing minor inaccuracies in an ad about a public figure in New York Times v. Sullivan. Obscenity was initially established as unconstitutional under the First Amendment in Roth v. The United States (1957), claiming that Roth’s mailing of obscene content was “without redeeming social importance.”

Deciding these cases depends on whether one wants to uphold individual liberty or social order. Opinions on what should or is constituted as “low value” speech are still debated in the twenty-first century as the rise of new technology gives people the opportunity to say anything anonymously or with little consequence. 

 

First Amendment – Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

The Freedom of Speech Clause is found in the First Amendment and has been highly important since it was ratified in 1791, and continues to be relevant in the present day. The first amendment was created with the original intent to protect each individual’s values and their right to expression. The Freedom of Speech clause prevents the government from ridding the people of their own opinions and from having total control over the way the people are able to interact with others.

It is primarily to state the allowance for people to criticize their own government without retribution. In many countries people face severe repercussions for presenting judgment to their government but this clause enforces the people’s abilities to speak their mind. This amendment was first put in place because the people wanted a written document stating their rights. The Freedom of Speech Clause is commonly understood as the law that gives all people the right to express any idea or opinion they possess openly without any risk of punishment, no matter what the view may be.

Additionally, that they can display these thoughts freely in any manner of expression. But, what a lot of people don’t realize, is the specificity of the amendment and the limitations within it that it holds. This clause presents the right for all people to publicly share their ideas freely without the fear of being punished by the government.  However, the Freedom of Speech Clause does not just give all people the right to say whatever they please to whomever.

The limitation is that people are solely protected from consequences being given from the government, and not others. For example, people can still legally be fired from a job as a result of expressing an opinion unless they are government employees. Freedom of Speech is highly debated as it is disagreeable among many whether or not any ideas should be acceptable to be expressed. This clause has been and continues to be controversial with the argument over making exceptions for what cannot be said publicly.

Most can agree that hate speech and words evoking violence shouldn’t be presented. But it gets difficult to incorporate that message into a law as it is difficult to create the limitation as all people have different views and different definitions of what they find offensive or politically correct. With this clause, the speech that gets the strongest protection is political speech. Praise or criticism of any political happenings are almost always protected by the First Amendment.

It has what is classified as ‘Preferred Position’ which is that all regulations, laws, and executive acts that will limit political speech are almost always shut down by the courts. A very impactful court case on the freedom of speech was Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1968. A Ku Klux Klan leader was delivering speeches that were extremely offensive and could be considered threatening to many people. Since it was political, the court ruled that it was protected by the First Amendment.

Something we also studied this year that can relate to the Freedom of Speech Clause is John Locke and his enlightenment ideas. Both were formed with the intention of giving more rights to the people. John Locke argued that people have the right to life, liberty, and property. The first amendment and John Locke’s enlightenment ideas share similar roots as they both allow people to have more agency and ability to express themselves. The Freedom of Speech Clause has impacted history greatly and continues to be relevant in the present day. 

Amalia – The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights was an agreement of the populous that there should be no federally established church. This decision was reached because before the revolution the Church of England was federally mandated in the southern colonies, while the northern colonies had their Puritan establishments. These different establishments bred dissenters, who were often punished for preaching without a license or refusing to pay taxes to a church they disagreed with. The topic of religion caused conflict in the years before the revolution, dividing the people of this new country instead of bringing them together under one previously imagined, now real, community and shared identity.

The Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights is commonly understood to have prohibited the government from establishing a state-mandated or federal religion for the nation, effectively separating church and state in the United States. 

This clause has been publicly understood to have separated the church and state in the United States, however many people have had interpretations of this clause as it regards government funding and government-sponsored prayer. Many of the matters of debate that spawn from this clause connect to religion and how it should interact with public education, all according to how the courts interpret the constitution. In relation to government funding, some argue the government must remain neutral between religious and non-religious institutions that provide education or other social services. Others argue that taxpayer funds shouldn’t be given to religious institutions if they might be used to further religious ideas because it violates the separation between church and state that the clause set in place. Through Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Board of Education v. Allen (1968) all students of religious schools gained access to transportation and textbook funds. As well, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) deemed it unconstitutional under free speech and free exercise principles to exclude otherwise eligible recipients from government assistance because their activity is religious in nature. On the topic of government-sanctioned prayer the courts determined it unconstitutional for public schools to lead students in religious activities, even voluntary in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963). These decisions, though controversial to much of the public, were not to the Justices: it would have been seen as government sponsored religion which goes against the Establishment Clause’s separation between church and state.

The Establishment Clause protects citizens rights to practicing their religion freely, without persecution, also ensuring that the government of the United States isn’t biased towards certain religions. This clause ensures that the obligatory religion that the colonists experienced under the monarchy could not happen in their new nation. The Establishment Clause also protects those facing religious persecution. With religious tolerance being written as an amendment to the Constitution, America became a place of refuge for those experiencing religious oppression; many Jewish people in the early 20th century who fled pogroms (planned massacres of Jewish people in eastern Europe) were able to make a safe life for themselves and their families in the United States. The religious tolerance that the Establishment Clause implemented has had a long lasting impact on the peoples and cultures that make up America to this day as well as how cases pertaining to religion are handled in federal Courts.