Chapter 9- First Amendment Freedoms of Expression, Association, and Press Flashcards
Which Amendment states, “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.”
First Amendment
State the First Amendment
“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.”
Although the freedoms expressed in the First Amendment are conceptually and fundamentally distinct from one another, they promote at least three common values. What are they?
- The idea that governmental power can be limited by allowing individuals to critique and otherwise scrutinize their public officials and policies.
- the notion that a democratic government functions best when conflicting interests are allowed to compete in an open marketplace, and
- the belief that individual expression is a necessary condition for human health.
True or False
The idea that governmental power can be lifted by allowing individuals to critique and scrutinize public officials and policies was designed to be an additional check and balance against a potential tyrannical government.
True
True or False
Freedom of expression promotes peace and stability among diverse groups of people and it is valued because it offers individual and outlet for personal thoughts and creativity.
True
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment fostered the notion of a marketplace of ideas, which allows individuals to sell, purchase, and evaluate different concepts thereby allowing individuals to regulate each other. This puts a democratic society in a better position to manage and balance the diverse products (ideas) and choose the best options.
It allows individuals the ability to express their thoughts and beliefs rather than bottling them up, as is the case with most totalitarian governments.
However, this does mean that unpopular ideas will be allowed to enter the public arena. Examples- protesters can burn a US flag, neo-Nazi’s can march down Main street, and the KKK will be given a permit to erect a cross on a public square. This is viewed as better than forcing these ideas to fester behind closed doors which could lead to more destructive behavior.
What are factions and what dangers do they pose to government? How did Madison propose they be dealt with?
Factions are individual or isolated interests that can destroy or substantially impair government if they are allowed to override the common good. According to James Madison in Federalist No. 10, there are two ways to deal with factions: to eliminate them or manage them. For Madison, the first was not realistic because it would result in a totalitarian government suppressing and otherwise quashing individual interests. As a result, Madison felt that the only way to address factions in a democratic societies to allow them to exist but also to manage them so that one interest does not rise to dominate the others. To that end, Madison believed that the Constitution would allow factions to be pitted against one another, thereby allowing them to be managed in a marketplace of competition.
Are the provisions protected in the First Amendment read or applied literally?
No, the statement, “Congress shall make no law…” does not only apply to Congress or just to laws or legislation. It has been interpreted to apply to all layers of government and it’s activities (not just legislation)
Additionally, the freedom provisions expressed in the First Amendment are not absolute, complete protection for all forms of speech, press, assembly, petition, and association. There are certain limits imposed on freedom of expression. These values are often balanced with other competing freedoms.
Despite the seemingly unambiguous wording of the amendment, the rights of speech, press, assembly, petition, and association have been interpreted to have certain limitations. The most common statement offered to illustrate this points the claim that individuals do not have the right to falsely shout, “Fire” in a crowded theater. The idea behind this claim is that although this situation involves a person’s speech, it also involves the safety of others, and there are times when a second value, such as human safety or national security, is going to trump or otherwise limit the value of speech. This trumping may also occur when a newspaper publishes false information, when individuals threaten bodily harm to public officials, or when people assemble or associate in a conspiracy to commit a crime. In each case, a competing value- a persons reputation, individual health, or public safety- likely will be deemed to outweigh the individuals right to self-expression.
The Supreme court frequently adopts balancing tests to resolve controversies regarding self-expression. Why?
These balancing tests are designed to assist in resolving the immediate controversy before the court but also to provide other courts and litigants in future cases with some guidelines or standards for interpreting First Amendment protections. One may think of these balancing tests as scales used to weight the value of expression against other competing values (national security, public safety, equality, etc.). When visualizing these tests as scales, there are two important considerations. First, has the Court presumed certain forms of expression to be constitutionally protected, thereby requiring the government to produce a very heavy (compelling) interest on the other side of the scale before the Court will find the right of expression to be unprotected? And second, how compelling (heavy) are the interests placed on each side of the scale? Appreciate the fact that the weighing of competing interests on each side of the scale involves certain value judgements of those doing the weighing.
