The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is found in the first section of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights forms the most significant part of the United States Constitution. Basically, the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are assumed absolute rights which should not be violated whatsoever. The First Amendment primarily entitles the citizens of the United States critical freedoms of expression, religion, and speech. Across the world, not all countries guarantee their citizens these rights and this could be the reason why the United States citizens are presumed fortunate. The reason is, in the United States one is able to stand up for what they believe in or what they do not subscribe to because such a right is provided for by the First Amendment. The founding fathers also referred to as framers of the United States Constitution had a vision for the country and its citizens. However, these amendments were written decades ago and with the changing environments and technologies, the interpretations of the same have changed. As a result, there are perceived limitations on the First Amendment. This paper, therefore, seeks to discuss some of the limitations of the First Amendment and also argues whether the First Amendment should have limits.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is comprised of two clauses. One is the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The initial idea of the framers of the constitution was that the two clauses would serve the common values. The two clauses are in different ways conflicting and do not provide for freedoms especially in the wake of social media. Today, a number of conversations and interactions occur online through a social media platform with the aid of the internet. In addition, there exist a few laws to regulate whatever happens online. The internet is viewed today as a force for development and a source of quick and inexpensive information. In addition, the United States cannot enforce laws to control all that happens online (Ardia, 2010). Further, the internet does not have any form of boundaries and thus cannot be virtually controlled by one country. In this manner, the internet offers one of the loopholes where the implementation of the First Amendment can be a huge problem.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In as much as the First Amendment offers a broad range of freedoms of expression, there are a number of exceptions which some are deeply rooted in history. For instance, the government has the moral authority to restrict the time, place and forms of speech but in so doing, leaves the people with a number of alternatives to express their views. In this manner, the government may limit demonstrations affecting traffic, picketing in individual homes or the use of loudspeakers in residential areas. These restrictions in a way serve the interest of one group and also give alternatives for the affected group. In the end, both groups are served right and no rights are significantly infringed upon.
Additionally, some rights of speech and expression are not guaranteed nor protected from restrictions by the government. These are in the categories of fraud, defamation, incitement, child pornography, or obscenity. In the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio, for example, the Supreme Court outlined that the government can forbid cases of incitement speech which in a way is directed towards the incitation or production of imminent lawless action. However, speech which aims at promoting action at some unspecified time in the future is not forbidden by the government. Other acts falling under expression such as defamatory lies, fraud and lying under oath are punishable by law since they are not guaranteed for by the First Amendment (Chen & Marceau, 2015). In some instances, negligent of factual errors might also lead to lawsuits. However, these exceptions are only applicable to factual falsehoods. On the other hand, expression of opinion cannot be punished even if the opinion therein is viewed generally as being morally wrong.
Some types of hardcore pornography which according to the law are labeled obscene are punishable. However, what is defined as actually obscene is not clear since the definition of the same is quite narrow. Obscenities in mere vulgar words are not punishable by law. Further, material depicting children engaging in sexual acts or naked in a sexually suggestive manner is assumed child pornography and is punishable by law.
Further, words perceived as fighting words commonly referred to as insults which have the potential of provoking physical fights are punishable by law. However, general commentaries on religious, political, and social matters are not punishable since they outline the feelings of an individual regarding the subject matter. Personalized threats which cover matters of illegal conduct including death threats are also punishable by law. There are however no exceptions for hate speech. The First Amendment does not guarantee protection for racist threats including other threats and personally addressed racist expressions are punishable. However, a speech cannot be punished on the perception basis that it is sexist, anti-gay, racist or hostile to a given religion.
Government employees, on the other hand, are subjected to a number of limitations of the First Amendment. Practically, government employees can be fired for speaking out things which might interfere with the efficiency of the employer. High school, junior school, and even elementary students can be subjected to disciplinary actions for disrupting processes of the education system or using vulgarities in the school setting. In the event that the government sponsors an expression of views, then it is provided for that the government restrict what is said in the sense that one cannot express things that the government does not support. On the other hand, speech on government buildings or government lands may be limited but the government cannot discriminate on these speeches based on their viewpoints.
For a fact, freedom of speech forms a significant part of the fundamental and inalienable rights in the United States. This freedom builds on the fabric of the nation allowing for the free press, true democracy and improved standards of living (Van Alstyne, 1983). However, there are cases when one’s speech infringes on the freedom of another. In the event that one’s freedom takes away the life of another, then it is assumed, criminal. Further, the government has extra authority to limit speech broadcast over television or radio. The government is considered as having the absolute ownership of the airwaves and in this manner, it can dictate what is aired and to some extent what the broadcasters can say. In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978), the government particularly held a ban on broadcast of vulgar words even though these words were constitutionally protected out of the airwaves. In the case of Red Lion Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission, the Supreme Court upheld the fairness doctrine which is a regulation by the Federal Communications Commission allowing for broadcasters to provide time for people who wanted to express their conflicting viewpoints.
A number of speech advocates outline that the First Amendment is quite broad and should be subject to limitations (Campbell, 2019). An example of the case of author Salman Rushdie who outlines that the freedom of speech should be coupled by the freedom to offend and in the absence of the latter, freedom of expression ceases to exist. Rushdie in the year 1998 authored the book satanic verses which in some pages outlined aspects which according to the Muslim faith were considered blasphemous. As a result, a number of violent protests emerged across the world. Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran in 199 issued a fatwa which basically is a religious edict calling for the death of Rushdie. In turn, Rushdie went into hiding for nine years. Even though Rushdie escaped harm, one of his translators was stabbed to death with other sustaining serious injuries. The protests led to dozens of death across the world.
In as much as Rushdie’s freedom of expression is provided for by the First Amendment, it was not worth high the cost. This means that, in as much as the First Amendment offers a variety of freedoms of expression, religion, and speech, there are instances which such freedom must be limited for the greater good of the society. In essence, when one’s right infringes upon the rights of other people, then a harmony should be created in such a manner to enable the conflicting groups a middle ground. Repellant speeches are illegal in many countries across the world. There are proposals to limit freedoms of speech which tend to demean the minority groups. On the other hand, there are calls to restrict speeches which call for violence against the majority groups.
In essence, the First Amendment was written with the sole vision of incorporating common values among American citizens. However, developments since then have outlined the fact that it is a broad document which requires with it some limitations. The limitations therein, however, are in no way aimed at contradicting the First Amendment but incorporating the interests of the broader population. In a way, the limitations on the First Amendment are supposed to bring harmony in the society. However, when the government is given the authority to prohibit freedoms they disfavor, it is quite apparent that this might be violated. In most cases, the authority of the government is dictated by political considerations, unlike principled distinctions. This means that limitations to the First Amendment should be allowed but the governments should not be empowered to suppress speech due to its potential of causing violent actions. This is based on the fact that a society which limits provocative speech is a society which lacks controversial ideas, art or politics.
References
Ardia, D. S. (2010). Government Speech and Online Forums: First Amendment Limitations on Moderating Public Discourse on Government Websites. Brigham Young University Law Review , (Issue 6), 1981.
Campbell, J. (2019). The Invention of First Amendment Federalism. Texas Law Review , 97 (3), 517–570.
Chen, A. K., & Marceau, J. (2015). High Value Lies, Ugly Truths, and the First Amendment. Vand. L. Rev. , 68 , 1435.
Van Alstyne, W. W. (1983). First Amendment Limitations on Recovery from the Press--An Extended Comment on the Anderson Solution. Wm. & Mary L. Rev. , 25 , 793.
