which amendment is freedom of speech

which amendment is freedom of speech

The Importance of the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech

1. Introduction

The introduction to the First Amendment in this essay is much more than a theoretical exercise, and it provides a critical context for this project. In a very real sense, the First Amendment is the cornerstone of American democracy, and this has been the case for the last 200+ years. At its most basic level, the First Amendment has protected and furthered the individual’s right to self-expression in a variety of aspects (verbal, written, symbolic, etc.). This fundamental right is critical to the American system of government in that it allows individuals to engage in the necessary act of participating in political speech. This may be done formally (voting for a specific candidate or policy) or informally (engaging in a political discussion), but in each instance, the individual is expressing himself in the hopes of shaping government action. It is the freedom of speech that provides the tool by which individuals can strive to influence government.

2. The First Amendment and Its Significance

The central place of the importance of freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, in the United States can hardly be overstated. The importance of the First Amendment and its significance to lasting peace and security through the promotion of a free press has been the subject of much commentary and remains the sine qua non in a free society. The First Amendment right to peaceable assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances reinforces the right to free speech by enabling individual citizens to engage in civic engagement and thus sustains the public accountability of government officials. The ability to engage in open debate and criticism of government is a necessary corollary to ensuring governmental accountability. By protecting these rights, the First Amendment serves to foster a governmental system imbued with the responsiveness and public access so vital to our democracy.

3. The Scope of Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment also protects a wide variety of expression that has no connection to the communication of ideas. By the use of certain articles of clothing, or by public nudity, one is often able to express certain views without the use of words. Many forms of activity, from refusal to salute the American flag, to participation in nonviolent political demonstrations and attempts to create organizations interested in the advocacy of specific ideas, can be considered forms of expression. The First Amendment protects these and all other varieties of expression, provided that such expression has an intent to convey a belief or a viewpoint.

Thus, the First Amendment offers special protection for individual self-expression. And here too, the Amendment’s concern is with the personal and the unconventional. Over the years, the courts have extended full protection to individual self-expression both in its spoken and written forms. When communication takes the form of hand distribution of literature, the protection is the same as for the spoken word. And protection of the process of expressing thought in its written form is of particular importance. Written material can have an impact upon others similar to oral communication, and may well represent the most effective way to present a viewpoint. Yet enforcement of the criminal law, or other sanctions, against the author of the writing, unduly chills the very process of writing, with unfortunate consequences for the free marketplace of ideas.

If there’s any one principle most central to the First Amendment, it may be that at least some kinds of speech or ideas fall outside the legislation’s domain. The Amendment’s protection is not confined to ideas that are conventional, orthodox, or even polite. In order to give room for as wide a variety of beliefs and opinions as possible, the protection must be extended to things that many people find distasteful or worse. This is not an evasion of the democratic process, but an acceptance of that process as one which best takes place in open contest between opposing doctrines. In a society that prizes the liberty of both its conviction and its opportunity to understand others’ convictions, the most deleterious effects of information control would be a discouraging of new viewpoints, and an entrenchment into the old ones, thus freezing the nation’s intellectual life.

4. Limitations on Freedom of Speech

National security, sedition, obscenity, pornography, blasphemy, and libel are a different matter. The limitations they impose upon freedom of speech are usually accepted without a great deal of opposition being offered. This is because the nature of the restrictions is such that the group being aimed at is generally unwilling to defend the material that has been cited as being offensive, and the material will frequently be of low importance to the welfare of the nation. The last point is very important. Although it has been established that freedom of speech is an essential element of democracy, certain forms of speech may do more harm than good to society. The trade-off between the benefits and detriments of free speech regarding certain issues can be well exemplified by a 2008 story where a Ku Klux Klan member was one of many people who opposed a Westboro Baptist Church protest on the grounds that their speech would incite violence and hatred, causing detriment to race relations in the local and wider community.

Limitations to freedom of speech may be categorized in two general areas: the legal and the non-legal limitations. The legal limitations to freedom of speech are complex and controversial. It has been said that “the question whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent.” If this question is answered in the affirmative, then the person has no right to exercise that freedom of speech. This statement and similar statements made in Australian jurisprudence have led to the anti-war protesters of both countries being frequently denied possession of a forum to voice their opinions on the grounds that their expression will incite violence.

5. Conclusion

The Founding Fathers were to create a society free from governmental tyranny and the inability to express one’s own ideas and thoughts led to such tyranny. This is why the First Amendment was so crucial to their way of life. Being able to say or write whatever they wanted went a long way in attempting to guarantee that the country they were fighting for would not deteriorate into the country they had fought so hard to leave behind. If there was one freedom that the American people could hold dear, it would be the freedom of speech. It is also important to remember that the first amendment was not intended to just protect the popular ideas. The popular ideas, needing no protection, could always flourish, but the unpopular, nonconformist ideas needed guarantee of their expression as they were the ideas that would be oppressed by a tyrannical leader or state. This became incredibly clear when the United States was in the midst of war and patriotism was more prominent than allegiance to the truth or the welfare of the people. In times like these, the first amendment is truly put to the test and we as a people must, in turn, test the resolve of the first amendment. For if the right is not fought for, it need not please those in power and will soon be taken away. These rights have been fought for time and time again, and we must always remember that despite what anyone may say, nobody has the right to take away our ideals.