First Amendment

Introduction

When this country was founded, many of the principles that were important to our founding fathers were important because of their experiences with the British rule. They wanted to ensure the new country and system of government they formulated would protect specific rights of its citizens. The freedom of speech which we enjoy is contained within the rights protected under the First Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution as the first ten amendments in order to gain acceptance and ultimately the adoption of the Constitution (Bill of Rights). Many have questioned the intent of our founding fathers with regard to speech and the freedoms associated with it. Throughout history, there have been many interpretations of the First Amendment, and just as many questions pertaining to which types of speech are protected.

Discussion

The purpose of the First Amendment was to guarantee freedom from governmental control. The founders of our government had enough foresight to see that no other right would be secure without the rights guaranteed within the First Amendment, thus it has been stated that this is the most important of all the amendments (Monk, 2003). They left the language general allowing for the ability to make changes to the Constitution (Tueber, 1988).

The analysis of the First Amendment 1aw wi11 is helpful to overview a few of the basic issues argued by proponents of speech codes at this time. The notion of the market place of ideas forms much of the basis of first amendment jurisprudence. Essentia1ly, the thought here is that the best way to test the truth of an idea is to subject it to the scrutiny of competing ideas. As ideas are produced, they enter a metaphorical "market place" where some wi11 be accepted, some rejected, others modified by argument. Proponents of hate speech codes argue that, when faced with hatefu1 ep1thets and other forms of racist speech, minorities are 1eft virtua1ly speechless. The psychic damage created by the attack leaves its victims unable to participate or contribute to the marketplace.

In the year, 1992 in the City of St. Paul R.A. and other teenagers were charged with disorderly conduct. These teenagers made a cross and decided to go across the street to an African American household and burn the cross on their front lawn. Under the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance, it outlaws the showing of symbols, objects, graffiti, etc. that one "knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in other on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.” When taken to the Minnesota Supreme Court they ruled, “That the act was not too broad and unallowably content based”, and therefore it did not violate the First Amendment because the act was restricted to “fighting words" which are not protected by the constitution, regardless (Kanovitz, p. 77). Anyone who advocates discrimination of race, color, creed, religion, or gender against anyone will receive special ...