The First Amendment

The First Amendment

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is part of our countries Bill of Rights. The first amendment is perhaps the most important part of the U.S. Constitution because the amendment guarantees citizens freedom of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, amendment requires that there be a separation maintained between church and state.

Our first amendment to the United States Constitution 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. The First Amendment was written because citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms.

Without our First Amendment, religious minorities could be mistreated, the government could possibly set up a national religion, protesters could be harmed or jailed, the press would not be able to criticize and report facts regarding the government, and citizens could not organize for changes they believe are needed.

Although the first amendment was written into our constitution, the translation of the meaning of the written word is often challenged. Some people believe freedom of speech should not include hate words, pornography, and vulgar language in our music or on the radio or public television. In addition, there are people who believe in freedom of religion but only if the faith is similar to their own and there is a constant debate regarding freedom of the press and what newspapers should be able to report. Because interpretation of the first amendment is sometimes challenged, some court rulings on important cases regarding freedom of speech, religion, and press have changed some perceptions.

For example the court case Schenck v. United States (249 U.S. 47, 1919) in regards to the first amendments freedom of speech. This case involved the Espionage Act, which was enacted during World War I. The Espionage Act stated that during wartime interfering with the draft and trying to make soldiers disloyal to the country or disobedient was seen as a crime. After the Act was passed almost 2000 people were accused of violating this law and were put on trial.

Mr. Charles Scheneck was against the war and to protest he distributed thousands of pamphlets to persons who had been drafted. The pamphlets said that the government had no right to send U.S. citizens to other countries to kill people.

The government charged Schenck with violating the Espionage Act and said that Schenck's pamphlets were intended to weaken the loyalty of soldiers and to obstruct military recruiting. Schenck said that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional. He said that the charges against him broke the First Amendment's promise that "Congress shall make no lawÐ'...abridging the freedom of speech." (Cornell, 2006).

After the trial went through the federal courts, the case was in the end judged by the Supreme Court in 1919. The Supreme Court upheld Schenck's conviction, saying that the charge did not violate his First Amendment right to free speech although the judge did say that in many places and in ordinary times Mr. Schenck would have had a right to say everything that he said in his pamphlets. However, the judge said that how far a person's freedom of speech extends depends on the circumstances. The judge believed that during a war the government has the power to prevent obstructions to recruitment. Therefore, the government also has the power to punish someone who uses words that are proven to cause such difficulty.

The judge took the argument that the question in each case regarding freedom of speech should depend on the circumstances in that if the words create a clear and present danger that the government has a right to get involved. The decision of the judge in Schenck v. United States case brought the view that any justice member must consider the implication of the speech and circumstances of the speech. Judges should consider the consequence of the danger and the probability that the threat may actually take place in regards to the speech itself. Other judges disagree with this view and complained that the test made the decision about when speech may be limited a matter of degree and that each case could result in a contradictory decision (Cornell, 2006).

One opponent to the clear and present danger test thought that a balancing view of free speech destroyed freedom. Instead he proposed another approach to the First Amendment, called the absolutist view of free speech in which people may never be punished for what they say but they may be punished for the place, time, or way in which they say it. For example, someone might be charged with disturbing the peace for using a loudspeaker to broadcast a speech at 4:00 in the morning, but the speaker would face no charges for the content of the speech (Cornell, 2006).

Another case in regards to the first amendment was the Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. This case was related to the first amendments freedom of religion. In the case two Native Americans were fired from their jobs because they took peyote for sacramental purposes. Peyote is the common name for a small, turnip-shaped cactus native to Mexico. The active hallucinogenic material in peyote is mescaline. Peyote alters perceptions, producing vivid hallucinations, inaccurate estimations of time, and feelings of anxiety (I-SATE, 2006).

The two men in this case were employed by a private drug rehabilitation organization and were denied unemployment compensation on the grounds that their dismissal was for work- related misconduct. The Oregon Supreme Court at first ruled that the two were entitled to benefits because the state's interest in its compensation fund did not outweigh the burden the decision placed on the men's religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the state courts for them to rule whether it was constitutional to proscribe the use of sacramental peyote. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the law was allowable, and the case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court decided that a State could not condition the availability of unemployment insurance on an individual's willingness to forego conduct required by his religion. However, this is not the case when law prohibits the conduct. The Oregon law is not specifically directed at the Native Americans' religious practice and is constitutional when applied to other citizens. "It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the

...