sam

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. 

Sam Shapiro-The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, many people believed that armies were a way for governments to oppress their citizens. The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms, served as a counterbalance to this potential threat to liberty. Citizens bearing arms allowed the government to utilize standalone militias consisting of regular people with their own guns as an alternative to a standing army. The right to bear arms also gave citizens a direct ability to resist tyranny.

However, the common interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it all grants citizens the right to bear arms, is subject to debate. Some argue that like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment is an individual right granting personal protection and a right to self-defense. In this context, regulations cannot sacrifice one’s individual right to protection, and gun control laws must be extremely limited in nature to be constitutional. The ‘individual right’ argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. vs Heller. This ruling overturned previous gun control restrictions in the District. 

Others argue that the Second Amendment supports a more limited right to bear arms. They argue that the first clause of the amendment, “a well regulated Militia,” is a restriction on gun ownership; gun control is therefore broadly permissible. This is further supported by the fact that gun control laws existed when this amendment was enacted. At the time, slaves and loyalists were banned from gun ownership, and laws specified which guns were allowed for militias to use. Some of these laws were intended for public safety. As a result, this side believes that gun ownership today, and the Second Amendment more broadly, must be placed in the context of public safety concerns.

Today, the Second Amendment has proven to be problematic because our society is very different from the founding fathers’ era. The Constitution was ratified at a time when people were concerned about government tyranny. The Second Amendment, by enabling citizen militias, partially addressed that concern. Today, government tyranny is much less of a fear as it was, and even if it is a concern, individuals owning guns are powerless against the US Military. So, the reasons behind the Second Amendment no longer exist, but Americans still have the right to bear arms. This right, combined with the availability of advanced weaponry, has led to an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in our society. Change is needed.

The Second Amendment should be amended to make it clear that gun control is lawful and that gun ownership is not an individual right. This change can be coupled with laws that restore public safety with respect to guns. Examples could include a ban on semi-automatic weapons and requiring education, training, and background checks before gun ownership. By restoring balance to the Second Amendment, we can have a safer society while maintaining personal liberties. One hopes our current political environment will evolve to make this future possible.