The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. These guarantees were that the Congress would not: Download high resolution version (630x670, 87 KB)Contrast added for readability. ... Download high resolution version (630x670, 87 KB)Contrast added for readability. ... Page I of the Constitution of the United States of America Page II of the United States Constitution Page III of the United States Constitution Page IV of the United States Constitution The Syng inkstand, with which the Constitution was signed The Constitution of the United States is the supreme... The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution. ... Seal of the Congress. ...

• Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment")
• Prohibit the freedom of religion (the "free exercise of religion")
• Infringe the freedom of speech
• Infringe the freedom of the press
• Limit the right to assemble peaceably
• Limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances

The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was proposed by Congress in 1789, to be ratified by the requisite number of states in 1791. As with the remaining Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was passed in order to answer protestations that the newly created Constitution did not include sufficient guarantees of civil liberties. A state religion (also called an established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. ... The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. ... The Bill of Rights, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1789 includes the Free Exercise Clause which guarantees the freedom of religion: 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... A public demonstration Freedom of speech is the liberty to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related liberty to hear what others have stated. ... Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public speech often through a state constitution for its citizens, and associations of individuals extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. ... Freedom of assembly is the freedom to associate with, or organize any groups, gatherings, clubs, or organizations that one wishes. ... 1789 was a common year starting on Thursday (see link for calendar). ... Ratification is the process of adopting an international treaty, or a constitution or other nationally binding document (such as an amendment to a constitution) by the agreement of multiple subnational entities. ... 1791 was a common year starting on Saturday (see link for calendar). ...

The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by Congress. Over time, however, the courts held that this extends to the executive and judicial branches. The Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment against the actions of the states. Amendment XIV (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and includes the due process and equal protection clauses (Section 1). ...

Text

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.

Court interpretation

The Supreme Court has, over the years, established rules and tests for the constitutionality of legislation falling under the First Amendment. Lower courts tend to follow these rules in interpreting the text of the Constitution. Such classic phrases as "clear and present danger," "without redeeming social value," and "wall of separation between church and state" are not found in the text of the Constitution, but have been important in court decisions, and have entered the legal and popular culture.

Because these tests do not appear in the text of the Constitution itself, several commentators, including Thomas Ladanyi and Barry Krusch, believe that such interpretations have functioned to re-write the amendment, creating what they refer to as the virtual first amendment. On the other hand, some commentators argue that if the Supreme Court establishes a rule or test when interpreting a constitutional provision, it does not actually alter the underlying document; rather, they suggest, the court merely creates a standard by which cases are to be judged. According to the commentators who favor the concept of a virtual text, the alternative view does not adequately account for the disparity between the text of the tests (i.e. the Miller obscenity test and dozens of others) and the text of the Constitution itself. Virtual First Amendment Some legal scholars believe that interpretations of the Constitution of the United States by the Supreme Court of the United States has in effect created a Virtual First Amendment which in practice supersedes the written text of the amendment. ...

Establishment of religion

Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. ...

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine," certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to reduce substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.") Seal of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest federal court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States to interpret and decide questions of federal law, including the... David Hackett Souter (born September 17, 1939) has been a US Supreme Court Associate Justice since 1990. ...

Free exercise of religion

Main article: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has often been interpreted to include two freedoms: the freedom to believe, and the freedom to act. ...

The free exercise clause has often been interpreted to include two freedoms: the freedom to believe, and the freedom to act. The former liberty is absolute, while the latter often faces state restriction. Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group, was often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses permitted the Court to expound the free exercise clause. The Warren Court adopted a liberal view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation. Earl Warren Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was a California district attorney and 30th Governor of California, but is best known as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States from 1953-1969. ...

Freedom of Speech

Sedition

Remarkably, the Supreme Court did not consider a single case in which it was asked to strike down a federal law on the basis of the free speech clause until the twentieth century. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were never ruled upon by the Supreme Court, and even the leading critics of the law, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for the laws' unconstitutionality on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, not the First Amendment. Seal of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest federal court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States to interpret and decide questions of federal law, including the... Judicial review is the power of a court to review a law or an official act of a government employee or agent; for example, although the basis is different in different countries, as unconstitutional or violating of basic principles of justice. ... The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed on July 14, 1798 under the administration of President John Adams. ... 1798 was a common year starting on Monday (see link for calendar). ... Order: Third President Vice President: Aaron Burr; George Clinton Term of office: March 4, 1801 – March 3, 1809 Preceded by: John Adams Succeeded by: James Madison Date of birth: April 13, 1743 Place of birth: Shadwell, Virginia Date of death: July 4, 1826 Place of death: Charlottesville, Virginia First Lady... Order: 4th President Vice President: George Clinton; Elbridge Gerry Term of office: March 4, 1809 – March 3, 1817 Preceded by: Thomas Jefferson Succeeded by: James Monroe Date of birth: March 16, 1751 Place of birth: Port Conway, Virginia Date of death: June 28, 1836 Place of death: Montpelier, Virginia First...

After World War I, several cases involving laws limiting speech came before the Supreme Court. The Espionage Act of 1917 imposed a maximum sentence of twenty years for anyone who caused or attempted to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States." Under the Act, over two thousand prosecutions were commenced. For instance, one filmmaker was sentenced to ten years imprisonment because his portrayal of British soldiers in a movie about the American Revolution impugned the good faith of an American ally, the United Kingdom. The Sedition Act of 1918 went even farther, criminalizing "disloyal," "scurrilous" or "abusive" language against the government. Ypres, 1917, in the vicinity of the Battle of Passchendaele. ... The Espionage Act was passed by the 65th United States Congress on June 15, 1917, during World War I. This act made it a crime, punishable by a $10,000 fine and 20 years in jail, for a person to convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere... Before the Revolution: The 13 colonies are in red, the pink area was claimed by Great Britain after the French and Indian War, and the orange region was claimed by Spain. ... The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917. ...

The Supreme Court was for the first time requested to strike down a law violating the free speech clause in 1919. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had during the war published leaflets challenging the conscription system then in effect. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck's conviction for violating the Espionage Act when it decided Schenck v. United States. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, suggested that "the question in every case is whether the words used are in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." 1919 was a common year starting on Wednesday (see link for calendar). ... Holding Defendants criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting practices of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war. ... Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ... Clear and Present Danger is a novel by Tom Clancy, written in 1989, part of his series featuring the character Jack Ryan. ...

The "clear and present danger" test of Schenck was extended in Debs v. United States, again by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case involved a speech made by Eugene V. Debs, a political activist. Debs had not spoken any words that posed a "clear and present danger" to the conscription system, but a speech in which he denounced militarism was nonetheless found to be sufficient grounds for his conviction. Justice Holmes suggested that the speech had a "natural tendency" to occlude the draft. Summary Argued January 27, 28, 1919 and March 10, 1919. ... Eugene Victor Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American labor and political leader and five-time Socialist Party candidate for President of the United States. ... Militarism is the philosophical belief in which militaries (armies or navies) should control the country and whatever they do theyre causing good to the country. ...

Thus, the Supreme Court effectively shaped the First Amendment in such a manner as to permit a multitude of restrictions on speech. Further restrictions on speech were accepted by the Supreme Court when it decided Gitlow v. New York in 1925. Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Sanford suggested that states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state." Lawmakers were given the freedom to decide which speech would constitute a danger. Holding Though the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, the defendant was properly convicted under New Yorks criminal anarchy law for advocating the violent overthrow of the government, through the dissemination of Communist pamphlets. ... 1925 was a common year starting on Thursday (link will take you to calendar). ...

Freedom of speech was influenced by anti-Communism during the Cold War. In 1940, Congress replaced the Sedition Act of 1918, which had expired in 1921. The Smith Act passed in that year made punishable the advocacy of "the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence." The law was mainly used as a weapon against Communist leaders. The constitutionality of the Act was questioned in the case Dennis v. United States. The Court upheld the law in 1951 by a six-two vote (one Justice, Tom Clark, did not participate because he had previously ordered the prosecutions when he was Attorney General). Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson relied on Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" test when he wrote for the majority. Vinson suggested that the doctrine did not require the government to "wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited," thereby broadly defining the words "clear and present danger." Thus, even though there was no immediate danger posed by the Communist Party's ideas, their speech was restricted by the Court. The Cold War (1947-1991) was the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between groups of nations practicing different ideologies and political systems. ... 1940 was a leap year starting on Monday (link will take you to calendar). ... 1921 was a common year starting on Saturday (see link for calendar). ... Communism - Wikipedia /**/ @import /skins/monobook/IE50Fixes. ... Holding Defendants convictions for conspiring, through their participation in the Communist Party, to overthrow the U.S. government by force were not prohibited by the First Amendment. ... 1951 was a common year starting on Monday; see its calendar. ... In most common law jurisdictions, the Attorney General is the main legal adviser to the government, and in some jurisdictions may in addition have executive responsibility for law enforcement or responsibility for public prosecutions. ... Frederick Moore Vinson (January 22, 1890–September 8, 1953) served the United States in all three branches of government. ...

Dennis v. United States has never been explicitly overruled by the Court, but future decisions have in practice reversed the case. In 1957, the Court changed its interpretation of the Smith Act in deciding Yates v. United States. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas." Thus, the advocacy of abstract doctrine remains protected under the First Amendment. Only speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable under the Smith Act. 1957 was a common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Yates v. ...

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren expanded free speech protections in the 1960s, though there were exceptions. In 1968, for example, the Court upheld a law prohibiting the mutilation of draft cards in United States v. O'Brien. The Court ruled that protesters could not burn draft cards because doing so would interfere with the "smooth and efficient functioning" of the draft system. 1968 was a leap year starting on Monday (the link is to a full 1968 calendar). ... Colloquial name for a registration document completed by a citizen of a country which enforces conscription. ... Holding A criminal prohibition on the burning of draft cards did not violate the First Amendment, because its effect on speech was only incidental, and it was justified by the significant government interest in maintaining an efficient and effective military draft system. ...

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that free speech rights extended to students in school while deciding Tinker v. Des Moines. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black arm-bands to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not cause undue interruptions of school activities. Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students ... are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State." The decision was arguably overruled, or at least undermined, by Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), in which the Court held a student could be punished for his speech before a public assembly. 1969 was a common year starting on Wednesday (the link is to a full 1969 calendar). ... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. ... The Vietnam War was a war fought roughly from 1957 to 1975 after the North Vietnamese government secretly agreed to begin involvement in South Vietnam. ... Abe Fortas Abe Fortas (June 19, 1910 - April 5, 1982) was a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice. ...

Also in 1969, the Court decided the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overruled Whitney v. California, a 1927 case in which a woman was imprisoned for aiding the Communist Party. Brandenburg effectively swept away Dennis as well, casting the right to speak freely of violent action and revolution in broad terms: "[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Some claim that Brandenburg essentially sets forth a reworded "clear and present danger" test, but the accuracy of such statements is hard to judge. The Court has never heard or decided a case involving seditious speech since Brandenburg was handed down.

The divisive issue of flag burning as a form of protest came before the Supreme Court in 1989, as it decided Texas v. Johnson. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gregory Johnson for burning the flag by a vote of five to four. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. asserted that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Many in Congress vilified the decision of the Court. The House unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the Court; the Senate did the same with only three dissents. Congress passed a federal law barring flag burning, but the Supreme Court struck it down as well in United States v. Eichman (1990). Many attempts have been made to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag. Since 1995, the Amendment has consistently mustered sufficient votes to pass in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. Most recently, in 2000, the Senate voted 63–37 in favor of the amendment, which fell four votes short of the requisite two-thirds majority. Flag desecration is a blanket term applied to various ways of intentionally defacing or dishonoring a flag, most often a national flag (though other flags are defaced as well). ... 1989 is a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Holding A Texas statute that criminalized the desecration of the American flag violated the First Amendment. ... William Joseph Brennan (April 25, 1906 - July 24, 1997) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ... United States v. ... 1990 is a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar. ... 1995 was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... 2000 is a leap year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

Obscenity

The federal government and the states have long been permitted to restrict obscene or pornographic speech. While obscene speech generally has no protection under the First Amendment, pornography is subject to some regulation. The exact definition of obscenity and pornography, however, has changed over time. Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that although he could not define pornography, he "kn[ew] it when [he] s[aw] it." Obscenity has several connotations. ... Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφια pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of harlots) is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica. ... Justice Potter Stewart Potter Stewart (January 23, 1915 - December 7, 1985) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ...

When it decided Rosen v. United States in 1896, the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in a famous British case, Regina v. Hicklin. The Hicklin standard defined material as obscene if it tended "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall." Thus, the standards of the most sensitive members of the community were the standards for obscenity. In 1957, the Court ruled in Roth v. United States that the Hicklin test was inappropriate. Instead, the Roth test for obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." 1896 was a leap year starting on Wednesday (see link for calendar). ... 1957 was a common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Roth v. ...

The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California in 1973. Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied as to whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. Note, however, that national standards are applied as to whether the material is of value. Child pornography is not subject to the Miller test, as the Supreme Court decided in 1982. The Court felt that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount. Miller v. ... 1973 was a common year starting on Monday. ... The Miller test is the United States Supreme Courts test for determining whether speech or expression can be labelled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited. ... The term child pornography (sometimes referred to as kiddie porn) generally refers to pornography featuring a child, however the precise definition of pornography and child varies by region and country. ... 1982 is a number and represents a common year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar Events January January 6 - William Bonin is convicted of being the freeway killer. January 8 - AT&T agrees to divest itself of twenty-two subdivisions January 11 - Mark Thatcher, son of the British Prime...

Mere possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In writing for the Court in the case of Stanley v. Georgia, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch." It is not, however, unconstitutional for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private. Stanley v. ... Thurgood Marshall was a leading civil rights attorney before serving as Solicitor General and finally as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ...

U.S. courts have upheld certain regulation of pornographic speech. U.S. courts have found that regulation and banning pornography as a way of protecting children meets the strict scrutiny test. A zoning regulation which restricts where pornography can be viewed is valid if: the purpose for the statute is based on secondary effects, the zoning is not related to the suppression of the pornogrpahic content and the statute makes other ways of viewing the content.

Libel, slander, and private action

The American prohibition on defamatory speech or publications—slander and libel—traces its origins to English law. The nature of defamation law was vitally changed by the Supreme Court in 1964, while deciding New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The New York Times had published an advertisement indicating that officials in Montgomery, Alabama had acted violently in suppressing the protests of African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. The Montgomery Police Commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued the Times for libel on the grounds that the advertisement damaged his reputation. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the $500,000 judgment against the Times. Justice William J. Brennan suggested that public officials may sue for libel only if the publisher published the statements in question with "actual malice," a difficult standard to meet. In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of making a false statement of fact that injures someones reputation. ... 1964 was a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will take you to calendar). ... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official, because the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. ... The New York Times is an internationally known daily newspaper published in New York City and distributed in the United States and many other nations worldwide. ... Montgomery is the capital of the state of Alabama, and is a city located in Montgomery County. ... William Joseph Brennan (April 25, 1906 - July 24, 1997) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ... Actual malice in US law is defined as knowledge that the information was false or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. ...

The actual malice standard applies to both public officials and public figures, including celebrities. Though the details vary from state to state, private individuals normally need only to prove negligence on the part of the defendant.

As the Supreme Court ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), opinions cannot be considered defamatory. It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, that a lawyer is a bad one, but not permissible to declare that the lawyer is ignorant of the law: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact. Holding The First Amendment permits states to formulate their own standards of libel for defamatory statements made about private figures, as long as liability is not imposed without fault. ... 1974 is a common year starting on Tuesday (click on link for calendar). ...

More recently, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the Supreme Court backed off from the protection from "opinion" announced in Gertz. The court in Milkovich specifically held that there is no wholesale exemption to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false (falsifiable) before it can be the subject of a libel suit. 1990 is a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

In 1988, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell extended the "actual malice" standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress in a ruling which protected a parodic caricature. In the ruling, "actual malice" was described as "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true." Holding The creators of parodies of public figures are protected by the First Amendment against civil liability, unless the parody includes false statements of fact made in knowing or reckless disregard of the truth. ... In contemporary usage, parody is a form of satire that imitates another work of art in order to ridicule it. ...

Ordinarily, the First Amendment only applies to prohibit direct government censorship. The protection from libel suits recognizes that the power of the state is needed to enforce a libel judgment between private persons. The Supreme Court's scrutiny of defamation suits is thus sometimes considered part of a broader trend in U.S. jurisprudence away from the strict state action requirement, and into the application of First Amendment principles when private actors invoke state power.

Likewise, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a rule of law that often prohibits the application of antitrust law to statements made by competitors before public bodies: a monopolist may freely go before the city council and urge the denial of its competitor's building permit without being subject to Sherman Act liability. This principle is being applied to litigation outside the antitrust context, including state tort suits for intentional interference with business relations and "SLAPP Suits." The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a doctrine of United States antitrust law set forth by the United States Supreme Court in a pair of cases which held that under the First Amendment, it can not be a violation of the federal antirtrust laws for comptitors to lobby the government to... The Sherman Antitrust Act was the first government action to limit trusts (A combination of firms or corporations who agree not to lower prices below a certain rate for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry). ... Strategic lawsuits against public participation, (SLAPP) refers to litigation filed by a large corporation (or in some cases, a wealthy individual) to silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. ...

Similarly, some states have adopted, under their protections for free speech, the Pruneyard doctrine, which prohibits private property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum (often shopping malls and grocery stores) from enforcing their private property rights to exclude political speakers and petition-gatherers. This doctrine has been rejected as a matter of federal constitutional law, but is meeting growing acceptance as a matter of state law. The PruneYard Shopping Center is a sprawling 250,000 sq. ...

Political speech

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related laws restricted the monetary contributions that may be made to political campaigns and expenditure by candidates. The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Act in Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976. The Court affirmed some parts of the Act and rejected others. The Court concluded that limits on campaign contributions "serve[d] the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion." At the same time, the Court overturned the expenditure limits, which it found imposed "substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech." Buckley v. ...

Further rules on campaign finance were scrutinized by the Court when it determined McConnell v. Federal Election Commission in 2003. The case centered on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a law that introduced several new restrictions on campaign financing. The Supreme Court upheld provisions which barred the raising of soft money by national parties and the use of soft money by private organizations to finance certain election-related advertisements. At the same time, the Court struck down the "choice of expenditure" rule, which required that parties could either make coordinated expenditures for all its candidates, or permit candidates to spend independently, but not both, further stating that a "provision place[d] an unconstitutional burden on the parties' right to make unlimited independent expenditures." The Supreme Court also ruled that the provision preventing minors from making political contributions was unconstitutional, relying on the precedent on the Tinker case. For additional details, see campaign finance reform. McConnell v. ... Soft money refers to money used to advance a particular political campaign in such a manner as to skirt the legal limits on how much money individuals or organizations are allowed to contribute to political campaigns (termed hard money). ... Campaign finance reform is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns. ...

The "free speech zone" at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

Free speech zones came into existence soon after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as part of George W. Bush's security campaign. Free speech zones are set up by the Secret Service who scout locations where the president is to pass through or speak at. Officials target those who carry anti-Bush signs (and sometimes pro-Bush signs) and escort them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone. Protesters who refuse to go to the free speech zone are often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. In 2003, a seldom-used federal law was brought up that says that "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States" is a crime. The First Amendment zone at the 2004 Democratic Nation convention Picture taken July 21, 2004. ... The First Amendment zone at the 2004 Democratic Nation convention Picture taken July 21, 2004. ... The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones or derisively as Free speech cages) are areas in the United States that are set aside for political protesters to exercise their right to free speech. ... 2004 Democratic National Convention logo The 2004 Democratic National Convention culminated in the arrival of John Kerry on July 29 to address the delegates. ... The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones or derisively as Free speech cages) are areas in the United States that are set aside for political protesters to exercise their right to free speech. ... The World Trade Center on fire The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. ... Order: 43rd President Vice President: Dick Cheney Term of office: January 20, 2001 – Present Preceded by: Bill Clinton Succeeded by: Incumbent Date of birth: July 6, 1946 Place of birth: New Haven, Connecticut First Lady: Laura Welch Bush Political party: Republican George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the... The United States Secret Service is a United States federal government law enforcement agency that is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security (prior to the founding of that department in 2002, it was under the United States Department of the Treasury). ... A reporter is a type of journalist who researches and presents information in certain types of mass media. ... A camera is a device used to take pictures (usually photographs), either singly or in sequence, with or without sound, such as with video cameras. ... In law, trespass can be: the criminal act of going into somebody else’s land or property without permission; it is also a civil law tort that may be a valid cause of action to seek judicial relief and possibly damages through a lawsuit. ... In the criminal law of the United States of America, disorderly conduct is a name given to a rather ill defined crime. ...

Involuntary commitment

A small minority has questioned whether involuntary commitment laws, when the diagnosis of mental illness leading, in whole or in part, to the commitment, was made to some degree on the basis of the speech or writings of the committed individual, violates the right of freedom of speech of such individuals. Involuntary commitment is the practice of using legal means or forms as part of a mental health law to commit a person to a mental hospital, insane asylum or psychiatric ward without their informed consent, against their will or over their protests. ... Diagnosis (from the Greek words dia = by and gnosis = knowledge) is the process of identifying a disease by its signs, symptoms and results of various diagnostic procedures. ... The Scream, the famous painting commonly thought of as depicting the experience of mental illness. ...

The First Amendment implications of involuntary psychiatric drugging have also been questioned. Though the District Court in Mills v. Rogers 457 U.S. 291 (1982) found that "whatever powers the Constitution has granted our government, involuntary mind control is not one of them," this finding was not of precedential value, and the Supreme Court ruling was essentially inconclusive. District courts are a category of courts which exists in several nations. ...

Press

Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is subject to restrictions on bases such as defamation law. Restrictions, however, have been struck down if they are aimed at the political message or content of newspapers.

Taxation of the press

The Government retains the right to tax newspapers, just as it may tax other commercial products. Generally, however, taxes that focus exclusively on newspapers have been found unconstitutional. In Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936) the Court invalidated a state tax on newspaper advertising revenues. Similarly, some taxes that give preferential treatment to the press have been struck down. In 1987, for instance, the Court invalidated an Arkansas law exempting "religious, professional, trade and sports journals" from taxation since the law amounted to the regulation of newspaper content. 1936 was a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will take you to calendar). ... 1987 is a common year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar. ... State nickname: The Natural State Other U.S. States Capital Little Rock Largest city Little Rock Governor Mike Huckabee Official languages English Area 137,732 km² (29th)  - Land 134,856 km²  - Water 2,876 km² (2. ...

In 1991, deciding Leathers v. Medlock, the Supreme Court found that states may treat different components of the media differently, for instance by taxing cable television but not newspapers. The Court found that "differential taxation of speakers, even members of the press, does not implicate the First Amendment unless the tax is directed at, or presents the danger of suppressing, particular ideas." 1991 is a common year starting on Tuesday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

Content regulation

The courts have rarely treated content-based regulation of the press with any sympathy. In Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo (1971), the Court unanimously struck down a state law requiring newspapers criticizing political candidates to publish their responses. The state claimed that the law had been passed to ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish. 1971 is a common year starting on Friday (click for link to calendar). ...

Content-based regulation of television and radio, however, have been sustained by the Supreme Court in various cases. Since there are a limited number of frequencies for non-cable television and radio stations, the government licenses them to various companies. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the problem of scarcity does not permit the raising of a First Amendment issue. The government may restrain broadcasters, but only on a content-neutral basis.

Petition and assembly

The right to petition the government has been interpreted as extending to petitions of all three branches: the Congress, the executive and the judiciary. The Supreme Court has interpreted "redress of grievances" broadly; thus, it is possible for one to request the government to exercise its powers in furtherance of the general public good. However, a few times Congress has directly limited the right to petition. During the 1790s, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, punishing opponents of the Federalist Party; the Supreme Court never ruled on the matter. In 1835 the House of Representatives adopted the "Gag Rule," barring abolitionist petitions calling for the end of slavery. The Supreme Court did not hear a case related to the rule, which was in any event abolished in 1840. During World War I, individuals petitioning for the repeal of sedition and espionage laws (see above) were punished; again, the Supreme Court did not rule on the matter. The label Federalist refers to two major groups in the history of the United States of America: (1. ... 1835 was a common year starting on Thursday (see link for calendar). ... 1840 is a leap year starting on Wednesday (link will take you to calendar). ...

The right of assembly was originally closely tied to the right to petition. One significant case involving the two rights was United States v. Cruikshank (1876). There, the Supreme Court held that citizens may "assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances." Essentially, it was held that the right to assemble was secondary, while the right to petition was primary. Later cases, however, have expanded the meaning of the right to assembly. Hague v. CIO (1939), for instance, refers to the right to assemble for the "communication of views on national questions" and for "disseminating information." United States v. ... 1876 is a leap year starting on Saturday. ... HAGUE, MAYOR, ET AL. v. ... 1939 was a common year starting on Sunday (link will take you to calendar). ...

International significance

Most provisions of the United States Bill of Rights are based on the English Bill of Rights (1689) and on other aspects of English law. The English Bill of Rights, however, does not include many of the protections found in the First Amendment. For example, while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech to the general populace, the English Bill of Rights only protected "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament." The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a French revolutionary document passed only weeks before Congress proposed the Bill of Rights, contains certain guarantees that are similar to the First Amendment's. For instance, it suggests that "every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom." The Bill of Rights 1689 is an English Act of Parliament with the long title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown and known colloquially in the UK as the Bill of Rights. ... Events Louis XIV of France passed the Code Noir, allowing the full use of slaves in the French colonies. ... Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, (French: La Déclaration des Droits de lHomme et du citoyen), is one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution, defining a set of individual rights (and collective...

Freedom of speech in the United States is more extensive than nearly any other nation in the world. While the First Amendment does not explicitly set restrictions on freedom of speech, other declarations of rights sometimes do so. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, permits restrictions "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary," and in practice these loopholes have been interpreted quite broadly by the courts of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe† to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. ...

The First Amendment was one of the first guarantees of religious freedom: neither the English Bill of Rights, nor the French Declaration of Rights, contains an equivalent guarantee. Neither is the United States a theocracy like Iran, nor is it an officially atheist state like the People's Republic of China, due to the constraints imposed by the First Amendment. Theocracy is a form of government in which a religion and the government are allied. ... For information about the band, see Atheist (band). ...

See also

• Freedom of association

Freedom of association is a right granted under the constitution or interpretations thereof of several countries, or under certain international conventions pertaining to civil rights. ...

External links

• Future of the First Amendment Report (http://www.firstamendmentfuture.org/)
• Be Careful Who You SLAPP (http://www.mobeta.com) A book about First Amendment rights on the Internet.

References

• Constitution of the United States. (http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America)
• Kilman, J. & Costello, G. (Eds). (2000). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html)
• Haynes, C. "Religious liberty in public life." (2004). (http://www.fac.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx)
• Hoover Institution. "Campaign Finance." (2004). (http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/default.htm)
• Irons, P. (1999). A People's History of the Supreme Court. New York: Penguin.
• "Pornography." (2004). Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568395/Pornography.html)
• Krusch, Barry (2003). Would The Real First Amendment Please Stand Up?  (http://www.krusch.com/real/real.html) Using the First Amendment as a focal point, examines the process of analysis by which the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution, and argues for the theory that this process has led to the emergence of a "virtual" First Amendment.