Freedom Issues First Amendment Expression, Assembly and Petition The Facts 1. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall pass no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 2. The First Amendment states that Congress shall pass "no law" abridging the freedom of speech. (This prohibition was extended to state and local governments through Supreme Court decisions under the Fourteenth Amendment.) Does "no law" literally mean no law at all? The Supreme Court has ruled that certain forms of speech—libel, obscenity, or "fighting words"—may be regulated by the government. Dangerous Speech 3. Schenck v. United States (1919), a case arising out of World War I, established the precedent of "clear and present danger" as a method of determining First Amendment cases. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the First Amendment does not apply to words that "will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent," limiting the "right" to yell "fire in a crowded theater." 4. Dennis v. United States (1951) held that advocacy of overthrow of the government could be made a criminal offense, even without proof of tangible action. Hate Speech/Fighting Words 5. In R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), the Court ruled that cross burnings were protected by First Amendment, and declared that ordinances banning such "hate speech"activities were an unconstitutional prior restraint on the expression of unpopular ideas. 6. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) established a rationale distinguishing between protected and unprotected speech—obscenity, lewdness, libel, fighting words are not protected because "such expressions are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social virtue...that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Money as Speech 7. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court invalidated several parts of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, including: the limitation on total campaign expenditures, expenditures of candidates’ funds, and expenditures made independently by supporters, claiming that such limits were violations of the First Amendment right of free expression. In the same decision, however, the Court also rejected challenges to the requirements for disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures, to limitations on contributions, and to public subsidies for presidential candidates. Picketing and Parading 8. In Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), the Court ruled that picket lines were protected by the First Amendment freedom of assembly, claiming that such picket lines served the public good by making people aware of labor disputes. In 1941 (Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co.), the Court limited its previous decision and said picketing could be restricted in cases of violence. 9. In National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977), the Court issued per curiam decision (it did not formally hear the case, and instead made its decision based on the information presented in the petition) allowing Nazis to march through a town with a large Jewish population. Regulation of Sexually-oriented Materials 10. In Miller v. California (1973), the Court defined obscenity as material in which: the dominant theme appealed to prurient interests it was patently offensive to contemporary community standards it was utterly without redeeming social literary, artistic, political or scientific value The Court ruled in this case that such material could constitutionally be regulated by the government. 11. The Court confronted child pornography for the first time in New York v. Ferber (1982), ruling that movies showing children engaging in explicit sexual activity were a menace to society, and giving the states the power to restrict the sale of such materials. 12. A three-judge federal panel recently struck down the Communications Decency Act, which would have restricted the dissemination of "patently offensive" (but not obscene) information on the Internet. Discussion Questions Is free speech an absolute right? Should it be an absolute right? In what kinds of situations might the rights of speech, petition, and assembly be justifiably restricted? How should the law balance the right of free speech with the protection of women and children, when dealing with pornography? How should the courts define "fighting words"? In what ways could this doctrine be abused for political purposes? Should there be more restrictions on forms of speech or action that may be harmful to certain groups (i.e., cross-burnings, Nazi marches)? When might the community good outweigh the rights of individuals to speak and act as they wish? How does one define terms like "contemporary community standards" when dealing with potentially "obscene" materials? And which community’s "standards" will be used to judge such materials? Are campaign finance reform laws a limit on speech? Do they restrict one’s right to support the candidate of one’s choice? Or do they open the process to more speech by a variety of groups and interests by limiting the influence of the wealthiest or most powerful constituents? Speech Ideas/Talking Points Home | Freedom Issues Home Tips on Volunteering Home