First Amendment: Ever Been Challenged Constitutionally?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been challenged numerous times in the country's history, with critics arguing for its unconstitutionality. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government. Notable court cases that have challenged the First Amendment include Gitlow v. New York (1925), Whitney v. California (1927), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), United States v. Eichman (1990), United States v. Alvarez (2012), and Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002). These cases have addressed issues such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, separation of church and state, and the limits of government power in restricting certain types of speech.

Explore related products

First Amendment (Examples & Explanations)

$50.09 $76.95

Student Dress Codes and the First Amendment: Legal Challenges and Policy Issues

$39 $35.1

First Amendment: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook)

$104 $314

The New Information Industry: Regulatory Challenges and the First Amendment

$50 $25

The First Amendment and State Bans on Teachers' Religious Garb: Analyzing the Historic Origins of Contemporary Legal Challenges in the United States (Routledge Research in Religion and Education)

$44.79 $55.99

The First Amendment--The Challenge of New Technology

$70 $75

Free speech

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech. It states:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment has been challenged in court numerous times, and its interpretation has evolved over time. Initially, it applied only to laws enacted by Congress, but now it also applies to states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has recognised that the First Amendment permits restrictions on content in a "few limited areas", including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, and speech integral to criminal conduct. For example, in Whitney v. California (1927), the Supreme Court upheld Anita Whitney's conviction under California's 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act, as her defence was not based on the First Amendment. Whitney was found guilty of allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party, which the state argued taught the violent overthrow of the government.

In other cases, the First Amendment has been used to protect free speech. For example, in Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined "press" as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion". This right has been extended to media including newspapers, books, plays, movies, and video games. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court ruled that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, stating that "although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history".

The First Amendment has also been applied to protect individuals' right to purchase books anonymously, as in the case of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in 2002 that Denver's Tattered Cover Book Store did not have to turn over information about a customer's book purchases to law enforcement.

Freedom of the press

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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 of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The freedom of the press has been a topic of much debate, with some questioning whether the free speech clause and the free press clause are coextensive, and whether the institutional press should be entitled to greater freedom from government regulations than non-press individuals or groups. In a 1978 ruling, the Court considered this question, with Justice Potter Stewart arguing in a concurring opinion that the separate mention of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the First Amendment is an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society.

The definition of "press" has been interpreted broadly to include various media forms such as newspapers, books, plays, movies, and even video games. This interpretation ensures that journalists and nonprofessional speakers are equally protected by the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses. However, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to recognize the First Amendment as providing greater protection to the institutional media than to other speakers. For instance, in Houchins v. KQED (1978), the Court ruled that the Free Press Clause does not give the press the power to compel the government to furnish information not available to the general public.

The First Amendment has been used to challenge laws and prosecutions that restrict freedom of expression. For example, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court ruled that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, setting a precedent for First Amendment law. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gregory Lee Johnson, who was charged with violating a Texas law prohibiting the vandalization of venerated objects by burning an American flag. The Court affirmed that the government could not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because it is offensive or disagreeable to society.

The First Amendment has also been invoked in cases involving the protection of anonymous book purchases, access to information in school libraries, and free speech for government employees on matters of public concern.

Freedom of religion

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified on December 15, 1791, includes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, which concern freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion, while the Free Exercise Clause protects the right to exercise one's religious beliefs freely.

The precise definition of "establishment of religion" has been a subject of debate, and the Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting and applying these clauses in various cases. For instance, in Engel v. Vitale, the Court addressed issues related to religion in schools and the Establishment Clause. Similarly, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court emphasized the separation of church and state, drawing on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence.

One notable challenge to the First Amendment's freedom of religion provisions occurred in the case of Loewen v. Turnipseed (1980). The Mississippi Textbook Purchasing Board refused to approve a book, "Mississippi: Conflict and Change," for use in public schools due to its focus on racial matters. The authors filed a lawsuit, arguing that their First Amendment rights had been violated. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the authors, stating that the Board's criteria for rejecting the book were not justifiable and that the controversial racial content was a factor in its decision.

In another case, Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a government agency could not discipline an employee for engaging in constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern. This case reaffirmed the First Amendment's protection of free speech and its application to government employees.

The First Amendment has also been invoked in cases involving the intersection of religion and free speech. For example, in Texas v. Johnson (1984), the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gregory Lee Johnson, who was charged with violating a Texas law prohibiting the vandalization of venerated objects by burning an American flag during a protest. The Court upheld the principle that the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea, even if it is considered offensive or disagreeable by society.

These cases demonstrate the complex nature of interpreting and applying the First Amendment's freedom of religion clauses. The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in defining the boundaries of these rights and ensuring their protection in various contexts, including education, free speech, and government actions.

Explore related products

The First Amendment and Related Statutes: Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments (University Casebook Series)

$71.09 $240

Broadcasting, The FCC, Indecency and the First Amendment: Scrutiny and Debate (Media and Communications - Technologies, Policies and Challenges)

$75.62

Critiquing Free Speech: First Amendment theory and the Challenge of Interdisciplinarity (Routledge Communication Series)

$56.99 $74.99

The First Amendment: Cases, Problems, and Materials

$171.02 $193

The First Amendment: Cases, Problems, and Materials

$49.97

First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine (Litigator Series)

$5.99

Right to assemble

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to assemble, alongside the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The right to assemble protects the ability of people to gather in public places, such as streets and parks, for peaceful political action, protests, or parades. This right presupposes the formation of a group or association and extends to preparatory activities leading up to the physical act of assembling.

The right to assemble has been a significant aspect of First Amendment jurisprudence and has been the subject of several notable court cases. One early case is United States v. Cruikshank (1876), where the Court recognised the right to assemble as fundamental and subordinate to the right of petition. In De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), the Court affirmed that the holding of meetings for peaceful political action could not be prohibited, further solidifying the right to assemble.

Despite its recognition as a fundamental right, the right to assemble has faced challenges and neglect in modern times. The judicial focus on free speech rights has, at times, overshadowed the right to assemble. This shift in focus has had consequences for two critical aspects of the right to assemble: the right to protest and the right to associate. The public forum doctrine, which governs most protests, is linked to free speech rather than the right to assemble, leading to restrictions on various groups, including political protesters, anti-abortion demonstrators, and religious organisations.

The Supreme Court has recognised the "right of association," which stems from the right to assemble, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution. This right protects the ability to build relationships, develop ideas, and form social bonds without unwarranted government interference. However, courts and scholars have been criticised for neglecting the assembly roots of the right of association and prioritising speech and expression instead.

The right to assemble continues to be a vital aspect of the First Amendment, ensuring that individuals can collectively express their views and engage in peaceful political action without fear of government interference. While challenges and interpretations may evolve, the core principle of protecting assembly remains a cornerstone of free speech and democratic society in the United States.

Redefining the First Amendment for the modern era

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble, has been challenged and reinterpreted numerous times since its enactment. As society evolves, the question arises whether the First Amendment, built in another era, remains suitable for addressing contemporary challenges. Here are some perspectives on redefining the First Amendment for the modern era:

Evolution of Interpretation: The First Amendment has not remained static and has been reinterpreted over time to adapt to changing social norms and speech conditions. For example, in Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined "press" broadly to include various media formats, ensuring that the First Amendment protections extended beyond traditional forms of media.

Addressing New Technologies: The advent of the internet and social media has posed new challenges and opportunities for free speech. Cases such as Elonis v. United States and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union have addressed the intersection of free speech and online expression. The courts have had to grapple with defining the boundaries of protected speech in the digital realm, including issues like cyberstalking, trolling, and harassment.

Balancing Free Speech and Harmful Speech: While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it is not absolute. The courts have recognized that certain categories of speech, such as obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and fighting words, can be restricted. In the modern era, with the proliferation of misinformation and hate speech, there is a growing debate about where to draw the line between protecting free speech and preventing harmful speech that incites violence or causes substantial emotional distress.

Separation of Church and State: The First Amendment also addresses the relationship between church and state. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a "wall of separation between church and State," ensuring religious freedom and preventing government interference in religious practices. This interpretation continues to shape policies regarding prayer in schools and the involvement of religious organizations in government programs.

Application to the States: Initially, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress. However, through the process of incorporation, the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This expansion ensures that individuals across the country are guaranteed the same freedoms and protections afforded by the First Amendment.

In conclusion, while the foundational principles of the First Amendment remain steadfast, its interpretation and application must continue to evolve to address the complexities of modern society. This includes grappling with new technologies, balancing free speech with harmful speech, and ensuring that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment are accessible to all Americans.

Frequently asked questions