First Amendment protections and Supreme Court case analysis

¶ … First Amendment including kind cases, examples, Supreme Court rule-Based 1st Amendment grounds? Analyze: a.The Sections 1st Amendment means.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment is both one of the most significant legislations in the U.S. And one of the most divisive texts in the Bill of Rights. The text was devised with the purpose of preventing Congress from having the authority to either prevent individuals from exercising their right to express their religious views or to prevent the press from publishing ideas that are truthful. Many individuals are inclined to believe that government should not have anything to do with concepts like religion or freedom of the press. As a consequence, these respective people believe the First Amendment to function as a tool intended to assist the U.S. public in being able to access ideas it is entitled to.

The First Amendment reads "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."

Question a.

The first part of the text relates to religion and to how the authorities should refrain from getting involved in actions that would either promote or damage a particular religious ideology. Considering society's historic conflicts with various religions, it would be safe to say that the framers considered this respective history and focused on creating an environment that would not support such conflicts. Christianity and its status in England for several centuries previous to the moment when the Constitution was made played an important role in destabilizing the community and Americans thus wanted to avoid coming across similar situations. People basically acknowledge the degree to which religion could have a negative effect on a group of individuals and thus wanted the government to have nothing to do with it.

The section relating to freedom of speech or of the press is intended to have the masses able to express themselves without fearing that they are going to be penalized for putting across their ideas. Many people are inclined to interpret this as something promoting negative behaviors and attitudes and as making it possible for anyone to say anything, regardless of the effects that these actions are probable to have on a person or a group of persons. Someone can virtually say that members of a particular religious ideology should be killed. While such a situation is possible, the reality is that the respective individuals is also accountable for what he or she is saying and is thus likely to concentrate on putting across ideas that do not have a negative effect on others.

Question b.

Freedom of religion relates to individuals having the right to engage in activities characteristic to the religious ideology they support. However, at the same time Congress needs to take on impartial attitudes with religions in general and needs to do everything in its power in order to prevent religious individuals from getting involved in actions that might interfere with other people's well-being.

In some cases, for example, parents can sue schools on account of the fact that their children are provided with religious teachings. These parents can use the First Amendment as a means to have the Supreme Court acknowledge the fact that a particular school has violated the child's rights by attempting to have him or her better acquainted with religious ideas that he or she did not want to interact with.

When considering freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the First Amendment is intended to enable individuals to express themselves without being intimidated by the fact that particular people or groups could penalize them as a result of doing so. Even with this, there are numerous cases in which freedom of speech can encourage individuals to behave in ways that harm others and need to be stopped. "Indeed, both federal and state judges embraced the notion that suppressing speech with a "bad tendency" -- speech like libel, contempt of court, obscenity, and breach of peace -- did not abridge speech or press freedoms." (Lidsky & Wright 5) Taking this into account, it would seem that the government has a complex understanding of the idea of providing people with the liberty to express themselves, but does not feel that this respective freedom should also provide some people with the power to harm others.

Question c.

Dennis v. United States is among the Supreme Court cases that raised public awareness concerning the First Amendment. Eugene Dennis was the General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, and, similar to a series of other members of this group, he was known to have promoted ideas related to overthrowing the U.S. government. Such situations make it possible for people to understand the First Amendment's limitations. "The clear and present danger thus failed to protect the speech of dissidents in the face of a perceived national emergency." (Lidsky & Wright 7)

The Supreme Court has gone on to address particular cases in which people could not have access to rights provided under the First Amendment. The Central Hudson is a standard the institution uses with the purpose of differentiating between a case where an individual or a group needs to be provided with freedom of speech and a situation in which the respective person or group's actions might have a very negative effect on others. The standard got its name from a 1980 case, Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service of Commission of New York. The company mentioned here was attempting to promote its products, but the U.S. was experiencing a serious energy crisis during the period. As a consequence, the authorities decided that it was best to prevent the company from marketing its products on account of the fact that this had a negative effect on the country as a whole (Sheehan 49).