Free Speech Although the concept of "freedom of speech" as outlined in the First Amendment to the Constitution appears relatively straightforward, over the course of the country's history numerous cases have arisen requiring this concept to be refined and interpreted for situations the framers of the Constitution could have scarcely imagined. However, the framer's motivations for protecting speech remain just as relevant today, and by examining precisely how and why the framers opted to protect speech in this way, one may begin to understand which kinds of speech they intended to protect as well as possibly acceptable limitations on speech and the rationales for them.

Before examining some of the framer's motivations for protecting the freedom of speech via the First Amendment, it is useful to briefly consider the text itself, as a means of appreciating precisely which aspects of the First Amendment deal with the concept of "freedom of speech" and how these portions contribute to the larger notion of a "free government." The entire First Amendment is relatively short, consisting of the following statement: "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" (U.S. Constitution 1788). The amendment is broken up into three distinct clauses, all covering different aspects of expression and thought, and examining the clause most relevant to free speech will help to reveal some of the framers' motivations for protecting speech in this way.

It is important to note that the clause discussing...

This conflation of speech with the press reveals some of the particular considerations the framers had in mind when they decided why and how to protect the freedom of expression, because although they undoubtedly meant to protect the actual act of speaking, in that particular historical moment, more often than not it was published material that made governments eager to censor or otherwise quash the freedom of expression.
For example, the case which formed a large part of America's common law notions regarding the freedom of speech was printer John Peter Zenger's trial in 1735, in which he and his editorialist were charged with seditious libel for an editorial critical of the governor of New York. The jury declared them no guilty, and "as a result of the precedent set in the Zenger case, and the reluctance of juries to support prosecutions for seditious libel, the common law of seditious libel in America became generally unenforceable" (Linder, 2011). Thus, the kind of expression the framers intended to protect was first and foremost unpopular or critical speech and texts, because this is the expression most at risk from government censorship.

However, by protecting all…