1.1 History of the First Amendment

The First Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects essential freedoms like speech and press. It emerged from Enlightenment ideas of individual liberty and limited government. Early challenges tested its scope, like the controversial Sedition Act of 1798.

Over time, the First Amendment's reach expanded. Key Supreme Court cases incorporated it against state governments and developed doctrines to balance free expression with other interests. Today, it shapes debates on issues from hate speech to campaign finance to internet regulation.

Origins of the First Amendment

• The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, which are essential rights for journalists
• Emerged from the political philosophies of the Enlightenment era, which emphasized individual liberty and limited government power
• Influenced by the writings of John Locke, who argued for natural rights including freedom of conscience and expression

Ratification and early challenges

• The First Amendment was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, but its scope and application were initially limited
• Early challenges arose as the new nation grappled with balancing free expression with national security and public order
• The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 tested the limits of government power to restrict speech critical of public officials

Sedition Act of 1798

Federalists vs Republicans

Top images from around the web for Federalists vs Republicans

• 

  Patrick Henry - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:George Washington freedom of speech quote.jpg View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Thomas Jefferson freedom of speech quote.jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Patrick Henry - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:George Washington freedom of speech quote.jpg View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Federalists vs Republicans

• 

  Patrick Henry - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:George Washington freedom of speech quote.jpg View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Thomas Jefferson freedom of speech quote.jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Patrick Henry - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:George Washington freedom of speech quote.jpg View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• The Sedition Act was passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress during a period of heightened tensions with France
• Federalists aimed to silence criticism from the Republican opposition, who they accused of being sympathetic to the French
• Republicans argued that the Act violated the First Amendment by punishing political speech and press

Prosecutions and expirations

• Several prominent Republican journalists and politicians were prosecuted under the Sedition Act for criticizing President John Adams and the Federalist government
• The Act expired in 1801 and was not renewed, but set a precedent for government attempts to restrict dissent in times of crisis
• The controversy over the Sedition Act helped shape early debates about the meaning and scope of the First Amendment

Incorporation of the First Amendment

Barron v Baltimore (1833)

• In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, only applied to the federal government and not to state governments
• This meant that states could still restrict freedom of speech, press, and religion without violating the Constitution
• The decision limited the reach of the First Amendment for much of the 19th century

Gitlow v New York (1925)

• Landmark case that began the process of incorporating the First Amendment against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
• The Court upheld Gitlow's conviction under a state criminal anarchy law for distributing a socialist manifesto, but acknowledged that freedom of speech and press were fundamental liberties
• Opened the door for challenges to state restrictions on First Amendment rights

Near v Minnesota (1931)

• The Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota law that allowed prior restraint of "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" publications as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
• Established that prior restraint on publication is presumptively unconstitutional, except in rare cases such as national security or obscenity
• Strengthened press freedom by limiting government power to censor publications in advance

Evolving interpretations and doctrines

Clear and present danger test

• Developed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States (1919) to determine when speech can be restricted
• Under this test, speech can only be punished if it creates a "clear and present danger" of bringing about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent
• Focused on the circumstances and context in which speech takes place, rather than its content alone

Bad tendency test

• An earlier, more restrictive test that allowed punishment of speech if it had a "bad tendency" to encourage unlawful behavior or harm public welfare
• Applied in cases like Abrams v. United States (1919) to uphold convictions for distributing anti-war leaflets
• Criticized for allowing broad suppression of unpopular or dissenting views

Preferred position doctrine

• Emerged in the 1940s as the Supreme Court began to give heightened protection to First Amendment freedoms
• Under this doctrine, freedom of speech and press are given a "preferred position" in the hierarchy of constitutional rights
• Places the burden on the government to justify restrictions on these freedoms, rather than on the individual to prove their right to express themselves

Landmark 20th century cases

Schenck v United States (1919)

• Upheld the conviction of socialist activists for distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I under the Espionage Act
• Holmes introduced the "clear and present danger" test, but found that the leaflets posed such a danger in wartime
• Demonstrated the limits of First Amendment protection in times of national emergency

Abrams v United States (1919)

• Upheld the conviction of Russian immigrants for distributing leaflets criticizing U.S. intervention in the Russian Revolution
• Holmes dissented, arguing for a more protective "clear and present danger" standard that would allow criticism of government policies
• Revealed divisions on the Court over the scope of First Amendment rights

Whitney v California (1927)

• Upheld the conviction of a communist activist under a California criminal syndicalism law for organizing a political party
• Justice Brandeis concurred, but argued for a more speech-protective "imminent lawless action" test
• Foreshadowed the Court's eventual shift towards greater protection of political speech in the 1960s

Dennis v United States (1951)

• Upheld the conviction of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the government
• Applied a modified "clear and present danger" test that considered the gravity of the evil and its improbability
• Reflected Cold War era fears of communist subversion and the limits of First Amendment protection for radical political speech

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

• Landmark case that established a high bar for public officials to prove libel against critics of their official conduct
• Required proof of "actual malice" - knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth - to recover damages for defamation
• Strengthened press freedom to report on public issues and criticize government officials without fear of retaliatory lawsuits

Contemporary First Amendment issues

Hate speech and fighting words

• The Supreme Court has grappled with the line between protected offensive speech and unprotected "fighting words" that incite immediate violence
• Cases like R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011) have struck down laws targeting hate speech as content-based restrictions
• The Court has generally protected hate speech unless it crosses the line into direct incitement or true threats

Symbolic speech and expressive conduct

• The First Amendment protects not just verbal speech but also symbolic expression and expressive conduct
• Cases like Texas v. Johnson (1989) have upheld the right to burn the American flag as a form of political protest
• The government can still regulate the time, place, and manner of symbolic speech if it has a significant non-speech justification

Campaign finance and political speech

• The Supreme Court has struggled to balance free speech rights with concerns about corruption and undue influence in campaign finance regulation
• Cases like Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) have struck down limits on campaign spending as unconstitutional restrictions on political speech
• Critics argue that these decisions have allowed wealthy interests to drown out other voices and undermine democratic self-government

Internet and social media regulation

• The rise of the internet and social media has raised new questions about the scope of First Amendment protection in the digital age
• Courts have grappled with issues like online hate speech, disinformation, and platform liability for user-generated content
• Cases like Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) have recognized social media as an important forum for public discourse, while allowing some regulation of online speech to protect compelling government interests