¶ … First Amendment freedom of speech and press The Constitution of the United States has been considered to be one of the most liberal fundamental laws of the democratic institutions. It represents he cornerstone of the modern governance and of the modern state. However, the Constitution as it stands today has been subject to several amendments throughout history as reactions to the challenges faced by the state in time. In this sense, one of the most important amendments of the Constitution of the United States is the First Amendment, which ensures the freedom of expression, of the press, of the social groups, and of exercise of religion. The current research focuses on the First Amendment, its content and a practical applicability in the society.

Despite the fact that there have been numerous situations in which the First Amendment was applied and respected successfully, there have been even more situations in which the freedom of speech and that of religion were broken and the justice system was called to establish the abuses and decide upon a resolution. One such case is "Martin v. Struthers." Martin was a Jehovah's Witness member in the city of Struthers who was accused in 1942 of breaking local law by placing leaflets throughout the community advertising a religious gathering. This case was chosen because it represents one of the simplest and most effective examples of the First Amendment being applied. In current times, the legal issues as well as the various interpretations of all the legal context fails to provide clear account of the reasons for which the First Amendment was initially thought of.

In order to have a better understanding of the context of the constitutional amendment, it is important to consider some of the basic elements of the Amendment. It was adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill or Rights and represented at the time one of the few initiatives of a government to ensure that citizens have the right to express themselves both individually and at the level of an organized group. It must be pointed out however that the time for this Amendment was one of intense considerations of the role the society has in relation to the governing body. The French Revolution in France together with the philosophical trends, which were present throughout Europe allowed for an Enlightened thought to be set in place and therefore these visionary approaches would set the stage for an even more democratic background both in Europe and in the U.S.

The content of the First Amendment reads as follows: "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." (Cornell University, 2013). There are several points to take into account. Firstly, it must be pointed out that the First Amendment was a piece of legislation that aimed at limiting the power of the Congress, while at the same time ensuring certain rights and freedoms for its citizens. Secondly, it clearly states the freedom of speech, of the press, of free assembly, of exercise of religion and most importantly people's right to file petitions for proposal of legislative change. This part is mostly important because it provided the necessary context in which the people would be engaged in the governing act by ensuring that there are legal means through which citizens (who, according to the Social pact of the 19th century philosopher, JJ Rousseau, gave up on the individual power for the benefit of establishing a society and a political entity which is the state) would be allowed to express themselves and their grievances and influence the course of action in a society and the governance act. At the same time, the First Amendment is crucial for the setting in stone of the role the press and media in general plays in the society. This part is mostly applicable in current days when the media has become a true power in the state. At the moment of the enactment of the First Amendment, in 1791, the media was not a phenomenon particularly because of the limited technological means. Yet, the papers that did exist at the time were in dire need of ensuring that they have the possibility and the right to express views and opinions in a legal framework.

In the "Martin v. City of Struthers" of 1943, the case is rather straightforward...

The case was as follows: "Martin was a Jehovah's Witness in Struthers, Ohio. She canvassed neighborhoods knocking on doors and ringing doorbells to distribute leaflets promoting a meeting. She was convicted and fined $10 for violating a city ordinance that prohibited a person who was distributing leaflets and other flyers from knocking on doors and ringing doorbells. She appealed her conviction in the Circuit Court of Mahoning County, alleging that the city ordinance violated her First Amendment free speech and free press rights. The Circuit Court upheld the ordinance and her conviction. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed her appeal." (Kent College of Law, 2013)
In reference to this case, again, there are several aspects to consider. Firstly, in her action, Martin fully expressed the right to speech on the background of a free expression of assembly and practicing of religion. Therefore, it can be said that the First Amendment supported the background as well as her actions; the entire situation was in full accordance with the text of the law. At the same time though, the issue of distributing the leaflets was however against a local ordinance that did not allow the distribution of promotional materials because of the possible inconvenience that this may cause to the other members of the community. The text of the local ordinance states that "It is unlawful for any person distributing handbills, circulars or other advertisements to ring the door bell, sound the door knocker, or otherwise summon the inmate or inmates of any residence to the door for the purpose of receiving such handbills, circulars or other advertisements they or any person with them may be distributing" (FindLaw, 2013)

Thirdly, a more in-depth discussion on the issue points out the limits of liberties and rights. Better said, on the one hand, the individual has the right to express himself / herself. However, the limit needs to be set at the boundary where the freedom and liberty of the other members of the community begin. Therefore, it cannot be argued that one's freedom and right is limitless taking into account that it cannot be exercised to the fullest if that exercise breaches the freedom of the next person. A hypothetical example can prove the case better. In this sense, for instance, the right of the individual to express its religion is unquestionable. Even so, in certain parts of Western Europe, there have been a lot of debates concerning the wearing of religious symbols in schools. If taken as a standard right, the individual has the right to express his or hers religion regardless of place or country. While Christian religious symbols such as a small cross on a chain worn at the neck has never attracted any type of controversy, wearing of the Muslim religious symbols has spurred an entire array of discussions in parts of France and Germany. The rational behind these controversies lies in the fact that Muslim religious symbols do not allow a full visual contact with the children. Even so, if it were to apply ad-literam the considerations of the right to express its own religion, then this should be done without any subsequent views. Therefore, a proper question would be related to the actual amount of freedom such a right provides to the citizen or the individual, if taken at a global level (it must be pointed out that the right to express freely one's religion is a universal right, not merely one established by the American system).

Fourthly, the case under review also points out the fact that the local ordinance was not aligned with the First Amendment as it can be argued that the distribution of the leaflets is a means of expression and therefore should not be limited locally.

In the Opinion issued by the Supreme Court on this case, the issue of whether Martin was right to express her views and opinions according to the First Amendment. The conclusion of the Court was that indeed, Martin acted in full accordance with the spirit of this law and therefore overruled the decision made by the local court. There are several motivations behind the Supreme Court's decision and these take into account the basic notions and concepts on which the First Amendment was drafted. Firstly, the Supreme Court considered that "We are faced in the instant case with the necessity of weighing the conflicting interests of the appellant in the civil rights she…