Shodanea Brown Media Law And Ethics

Professor: Cornick
Name: Shodanea Brown
Topic:

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties freedom i.e. religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The prohibition on abridgment of the freedom of speech is not absolute. Certain types of speech may be prohibited outright. Some types of speech may be more easily constrained than others. Furthermore, speech may be more easily regulated depending upon the location at which it takes place. All these rights protect the people of the US they have the right to religion and speech, they right to say whatever they want as long as it’s true without being held accountable for it. Even though speech is protected by the First Amendment not every speech is protected for example obscenity, child pornography, and speech that constitutes so-called “fighting words” or “true threats” are not protected by the amendment. There has always been controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. I can’t say I disagree with anything about these facts, I do agree that one should have freedom of speech everyone should feel free to express themselves by speaking but not everything should be said and that is why not every speech is protected by the amendment.
Even though freedom of speech is important and is in the top two of the most protected freedom I would have to say that freedom of religion is number one. Yes freedom of religion is more protected than the other freedoms in the First Amendment. Religion is the only amendment that is protected by two clauses, first the establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." And also the free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. So one could say religion is the most protected freedom hence it has two different rules to follow. I understand this since religion is one of those things you can’t pinpoint to one thing or one God since there are so many different religion and the US especially is a melting pot of different religion. So if the US did not have this First Amendment to protect the act of religion and the country could just be in an up war at all times since everyone wants the right to practice what they believe in. But since this is Mass Media I guess I should talk a little about freedom of the press, but despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech” books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech" nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas. So NO it does not matter the medium in which the speech is presented the Amendment goes against it once it violates the guild lines. An example of symbolic speech: In its 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines , the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 ( Texas v. Johnson ) and again in 1990 ( U.S. v. Eichman ), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." If the First Amendment was to not protect printed press the way it protects speech then one would be able to write all the stuff one can’t say because it is exempt from protection under the Freedom of Speech rights. Then it would be ok for one to write about child pornography because then they would not be saying it, then it would be ok for one to write about obscenity because it’s not spoken words. The fight for freedom has been a long and hard one, if we look back on how far we have come from a few decades ago one would see, take for example labor leader Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were "fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder." All Mr. Debs was doing was voicing his opinion “freedom of speech” but was sent to jail for it. Now in 2014 one can tell those workers they could be doing something else and nothing would come of it. But freedom of speech is still and will always get a fight from politicians and big name business. No one wants someone to say the wrong thing to the right people especially politicians who are made by what they say and what people say about them.