No political or governmental issue is more important to Americans than their civil rights and civil liberties. The freedoms which Americans have and enjoy are part of what makes the United States so distinct in its values and the limitations these rights place on governmental power.
There is a distinguishing factor between civil rights and civil liberties however. Civil liberties are freedoms that protect individuals from arbitrary government interference. Civil rights refer to the government's responsibility to protect entire groups of people and ensure they receive "equal protection under the law."
Civil Liberties
The individual freedoms that Americans exercise are protected by the United States Constitution, which guarantees that neither the federal government nor the state governments will infringe upon a person's rights listed therein. The original Constitution, as written in 1787, had few protections of civil liberties, but this was quickly changed to accommodate the concerns of citizens leery of a centralized government without specific safeguards against tyranny.
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution provide most of the civil liberties for Americans, and we refer to this portion of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. This portion of the Constitution is written in a somewhat vague manner that has been interpreted and challenged numerous times throughout the nation's history. It's also important to remember that though we have the freedoms listed in the Constitution, no freedom is absolute. Exceptions exist for every rule.
The First Amendment
Arguably the most important amendment to the Constitution, it protects people's expressive conduct. The text of the entire amendment reads:
The first freedom listed is that of religion, which has two significant clauses, which are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause essentially guarantees the federal government will not support a national church. Other nations do not follow the same principle, which Americans have come to refer to as the "separation of church and state." For instance, England has an official religion, and the state church is the Church of England. Tax dollars go to the direct funding of these denominations and their activities.
The reason for the Establishment Clause was initially to quell concerns about states' rights. Individual states (9 of the original 13) established state sponsored religions within their borders and had little tolerance for the denominations outside of their beliefs. These states were only concerned in preventing the national government from telling states what religion they ought to endorse. However, the interpretation of the Establishment Clause has changed significantly over time.
The Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that neither the federal government nor the state governments can provide any substantial aid to religious groups or organizations. In the landmark case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three part test so that governments could determine if their actions violated the Establishment Clause. To not be a violation of the Establishment Clause, a government action must pass all three parts. They are:
For instance, if Congress passed a law requiring church attendance for all federal government employees, would that violate the Establishment Clause?
Examine part 2 of the 'Lemon Test.' Does the law advance or inhibit religious practice? The answer would undoubtedly be yes, and thus, this would cause the law to be ruled unconstitutional.
What if a public school had a church pastor pray over the loudspeaker at the beginning of every football game?
This would most likely fail all three parts of the Lemon Test, and be deemed a violation of the Constitution.
Though the government is limited in what it can do with respect to aiding religion, this should not be interpreted to mean that all forms of assistance to religious organizations are unconstitutional. Religious organizations receive a tax-exempt status, for instance.
Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that governments can provide financial assistance to religious schools in the interest of promoting education.
The second aspect of the freedom of religion pertains to the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees that the government will not punish someone for their religious beliefs. Americans are free to believe in any religion, or no religion at all.
Though religious belief is unrestrained, this does not extend to religious practice. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Free Exercise Clause cannot be used to shield a person from what would otherwise be a crime.
For example, if a person claimed they killed another human as part of their religious worship ceremony, the government would still charge them with a crime because it would otherwise still be a criminal act. The same logic applies to drug usage as part of a religious ceremony and acts of polygamy.
The First Amendment also provides protections for media coverage through its freedom of the press. If any freedom was close to absolute, this would be it. The free flow of information to the public is considered vital for the survival of any democracy, thus the federal government can neither pass any law nor take any action that would obstruct the media from providing the news to the people.
In nearly all situations, the federal government may not engage in prior restraint, which is another name for censorship. The government cannot prevent a news outlet from publishing or broadcasting information to the public, however, depending on the circumstances, that media outlet can be sued in court if they engage in slander (spoken lies) or libel (printed lies).
One such instance where the federal government may prevent a news story from being published or broadcast is when that story would somehow endanger the security of the nation.
Also, in criminal court cases, judges can issue 'gag orders,' where the media is restricted in what it can publish or broadcast about that trial. In this instance, a defendant's right to fair trial is deemed more important than the freedom of the press.
The First Amendment also protects the individual's freedom of speech. The government cannot restrict a person's right to freely speak and communicate. Free speech has greatly expanded through the history of the United States, and it includes a number of different types of speech.
In the United States, people have a right to speak even the most offensive statements without fear of the government. However, the freedom of speech should not be misconstrued to think that a person may say anything without consequence.
First, a person has the right to speak freely in what is commonly referred to as the public forum. This is any government owned property, where people can freely express themselves. If you are on a college campus, a public street corner, park, or other public locale, a person is free to speak their mind without government interference or punishment.
Some government owned property is not considered a public forum. For instance, speech can be limited in jails or on military bases. These are not considered part of the public forum.
When a person is located on private property, they are subject to the wishes of whomever owns that property. If you wanted to deliver a speech pertaining to abortion rights at your local mall, they would have every right to remove you from the building.
If you frequently post negative or hateful comments on social media pertaining to your employer, they can terminate your employment (presuming it's a private employer).
The freedom of speech protects all manner of expression in the public form, and that extends to non-verbal forms of communication at well. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment. Your actions and conduct are considered to be expressive in communicating your feelings and ideas. For instance, civil rights advocates in the 1960s used a raised fist as a way of communicating 'black power.'
Certain forms of symbolic speech have become controversial, particularly political speech that can be controversial. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court ruled that burning an American flag as part of a political protest was protected under the First Amendment.
Additionally, the ruling in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) deemed donations to, and spending by political campaigns as protected speech.
Contrary to what the general public might believe, hate speech is also protected under the Constitution's freedom of speech provision. Though most people might find a person's speech offensive or disgusting, this alone does not mean the government can create a law to punish that type of conduct.
A government can only punish the speech or conduct of a person if the speech encourages imminent, lawless action (see Brandenburg v. Ohio). This would mean a person would have to make a specific threat that would be likely to happen before they could be punished for their words alone.
Some forms of speech do not meet the level of importance to be protected under the First Amendment. One such exception would be speech that is considered obscene material. The federal government and states have made laws for many years preventing the production, sale, possession, and distribution of sexually explicit materials and many companies believed these materials deserved protection under the First Amendment as expressive conduct.
This argument was central to the case Miller v. California (1973), when the Supreme Court ruled obscene material was not protected under the First Amendment. So that states could more easily determine what is or is not considered obscene material, the Court created a three-part 'Miller' test, where material had to meet all three criteria to be deemed obscene. The three parts include:
It's important to note, also, that because the Supreme Court ruled that obscene material was not protected by the Constitution does not automatically mean obscene materials are illegal. It means that the federal government and the states are free to make laws about these materials. Governments could choose to completely ignore the issue of sexually explicit material altogether, but they have created regulations that most people agree are important. For instance, to purchase sexually explicit material, a person must be at least 18 years of age. States and local government often create zoning laws limiting where any business can be located that sells sexually explicit materials.
Another form of speech that does not receive protection under the First Amendment is that of speech that falls under the concept of "fighting words." In Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1942), a citizen named Walter Chaplinsky used profane language directed at a police officer. The officer had arrested Chaplinsky for violating state law preventing the use of abusive language directed at another person.
Chaplinsky's attorney argued that these words were protected under the First Amendment. The concept was that though they are considered offensive, that should not allow the government to prevent their use.
The Supreme Court disagreed and held that Chaplinsky's words amounted to "fighting words," which had no other purpose than to incite an immediate breach of peace. Their rationale in the ruling was that Chaplinsky's words were not only abusive but carried no social value. The freedom of speech was placed in the Constitution so that people would be able to freely communicate their thoughts and ideas. Chaplinsky's words carried no such value, so the government would be justified in creating a law to prevent such actions.
Slander and libel are also unprotected forms of speech. Slander refers to any type of spoken lies a person might say. Libel refers to lies or untruths that are printed or published. If a person or corporation submits false information or lies to the public, they can be held accountable in a civil court, subject to a lawsuit.
There is a difference in whom you speak or print information about. If the speech you make is about a public figure or a public issue, then false information about that person or issue is not regarded as seriously as false information about a private citizen.
Public figures subject themselves to the scrutiny of the general public and thus, receive less protection in terms of what is said or printed about them. This is why it's often difficult for celebrities and politicians to sue tabloid newspapers. Private citizens, however, do not place their lives in the limelight for public consumption. Therefore, they receive more protection because lies and misinformation are far more damaging to them than a public figure.
Freedom of speech in public schools is also a matter of concern because of a conflict between the rights of children to exercise their First Amendment freedoms and running an orderly public school system.
As a general principle, students may exercise their Constitutional freedoms in public schools provided that their words and actions do not disrupt the educational process. That concept was key in the Supreme Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), and has been consistently upheld. School administrators are given wide latitude in determining what defines a disruption to their school, provided they can actually demonstrate that a student's words or actions truly cause a problem.
School administrators can exercise censorship in student newspapers and television broadcasts, and other publications (such as yearbook) and may also punish students should something be printed or aired without permission or knowledge of the principal.
Other areas of expression or speech that can be limited or punished include:
The First Amendment's freedom to peaceably assemble and right to petition the government are often overlooked, but significant to the daily lives of Americans. The freedom to assemble in groups means that as long as a particular group of citizens is acting in a peaceful manner, they can gather together without fear of punishment from the government. We often take this for granted, but in many nations, citizens gathering in groups are not afforded assembly rights. They can be arrested for congregating together, though they may not have any ill intent.
Freedom of assembly protects groups and organizations of all kinds. Interest groups, political parties, religious organizations, corporations, and non-profit organizations all benefit from this freedom. As long as their activities are peaceful, they do not need to fear government punishment or interference.
Group activities typically include protests and other activities on public grounds. These groups are free to assemble and petition the government for some type of change, however, the time, place, and manner in which these activities are held can be restricted. For instance, if an environmental group wanted to hold a rally/parade/protest on a busy public street, a local government would have the right to deny them because such an event would be overly disruptive to the public good.
The Second Amendment
While the First Amendment is often deemed to be the most important amendment, the Second Amendment undoubtedly is the most controversial. The text reads:
Various state and federal laws have been passed that create some form of restrictions on gun purchases, ownership, and carrying. Those laws have been challenged in some instances, and gun owners have won significant cases that affirm that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.
Some states have serious restrictions on gun ownership and harsh penalties for those who violate the laws. The state of New York requires a lengthy application process for anyone to purchase a gun and limitations exist on when a person may carry or use a gun.
Within the limits of New York City, citizens must obtain a gun permit that requires hundreds of dollars in fees and a lengthy application process that includes not allowing permits based on any number of reasons. These limitations often disqualify citizens from carrying firearms or discourage them from attempting the process because of the number of requirements.
In West Virginia, however, the laws about purchasing and carrying firearms are much less stringent. In the Mountain State, a person may open carry or conceal carry a gun without a permit of any kind.
For a further examination on the difference between states and their gun policies, read this article from The New York Times, detailing the differences between New York and Oregon.
Urban areas with significantly large populations experience more problems with gun violence, thus they have had some of the more restrictive gun policies. Some of these have been struck down by the Supreme Court, including the laws in Washington, D.C. In the nation's capital, citizens could own a firearm with a permit, but were restricted to keeping it in their home. The weapon also was required to be unloaded, disassembled, or have a trigger lock.
In D.C. v. Heller (2009), the Supreme Court noted that cities and states could make laws and policies about firearms, but the policies in place in Washington, D.C. were far too restrictive and impeded on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. The Court's decision overturned D.C.'s gun law, but also allowed for city officials to attempt to make new, less restrictive policies.
The Third Amendment
No one really complains about the Third Amendment. The text is fairly straightforward:
The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment protects a person from illegal searches and seizures by governing authorities. It is extremely relevant to the people and the police. The text reads:
American colonists experienced a great deal of harassment at the hands of British authorities, and they believed in principle that a person or their effects should not be searched unless the government can demonstrate good cause to do so.
The police may search a person or their property provided they have either (a) a valid search warrant (written permission from a court of law) or (b) probable cause (reason to believe a crime has been committed).
Probable cause may exist in a variety of circumstances, in which case a warrant would not be necessary. One such instance is when a person gives consent to be searched. People may forego their Fourth Amendment rights, but should they do such a thing, they are held accountable for any evidence the police may find.
Another common instance where probable cause exists stems from the concept of "plain view" evidence. If a police officer is lawfully present at a location, that officer may seize materials that are said to be in plain view of his field of vision.
Police may conduct searches and seizures if exigent circumstances exist. These refer to any situation where obtaining a warrant would be either impractical or dangerous. This concept allows police to conduct 'stop and frisk' searches of individuals who might be exhibiting signs of dangerous activity or possessing contraband material.
Officers may search motor vehicles, provided they have reason to believe a crime or illegal activity has occurred. Police may not randomly pull over vehicles, however, sobriety checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, so long as the authorities publicize well in advance when and where the checkpoint will occur.
One of the more controversial types of warrant-less searches that occurs pertains to airport security and border searches. Authorities may search a person at any time without suspicion (which occur randomly). However, any search that is more intrusive (such as a cavity search or strip search) must be justified through reasonable suspicion.
When police or other government authorities conduct an 'unreasonable' or illegal search that violates the Fourth Amendment, any evidence that is gained through that search cannot be used against an individual, no matter what the evidence may be. This is referred to the exclusionary rule, established in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
The Fifth Amendment
This part of the Constitution entails five specific protections and with the Sixth Amendment, mainly describes the rights of a person accused of a crime. This amendment is lengthier than the previous four,
1. A person cannot be made to stand trial unless they are first 'indicted' by a 'grand jury'. Before a criminal trial ever occurs, a group of citizens called a grand jury looks at the evidence in the case and determines if there is enough evidence for a trial to occur. They do not determine guilt or innocence. If the grand jury believes enough evidence exists to proceed to a trial, then the accused person has been 'indicted' (in-dye-ted).
2. No person can be made to answer for the same crime twice. This protection is often referred to as 'double jeopardy,' and this means that if a jury finds that a defendant is not guilty, the government may not try this person for that particular crime again, even if they find new evidence. The protection against double jeopardy came from the colonial era, when British authorities would re-try a case multiple times until they achieved a guilty verdict.
3. A person cannot be required to be a witness against himself. During a trial, an accused person cannot be forced to testify. The Supreme Court has also ruled that during a police interrogation, a suspect does not have to speak to police about anything.
4. A person cannot be imprisoned or have their property taken unless they have first been given due process of law. In most cases, due process means that an accused individual must be afforded all procedures and processes given to an accused person. They must be given a trial by jury, an attorney, a speedy trial, etc.
5. Finally, the government cannot take private property from citizens unless the property is to be used for the public good and the owner is fairly compensated for the loss of property. This is commonly referred to as eminent domain.
The Sixth Amendment
Like the Fifth Amendment, this provides certain guarantees to those accused of crimes. The text reads:
In short, this amendment provides seven key guarantees when accused of a crime.
1. A speedy and public trial. The term 'speedy' isn't clearly defined but the government has stated that a federal case must begin within 100 days of a person being charged with a crime.
2. An impartial jury where the crime was committed.
3. Right to know the charges against you.
4. Right to confront the witnesses that would testify against you.
5. Right to compel witnesses to appear on your behalf.
6. Right to have an attorney (even if you cannot afford one).
The Seventh Amendment
Often referred to as one of the "forgotten amendments," this part of the Constitution guarantees that a person has the right to a jury trial in civil cases (lawsuits) concerning more than $20. That dollar figure was a significant sum in the 18th century, but has remained unchanged since being adopted into the Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment
The text here pertains to what happens to individuals who are being imprisoned or detained by the government:
Does imposing the death penalty qualify as cruel or unusual? The Supreme Court has stated that while executing a criminal is not necessarily cruel or unusual, there are some forms of capital punishment that would definitely violate a person's rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that executing mentally impaired citizens is unconstitutional, as is the case for criminals who committed crimes while under the age of 18.
The Ninth Amendment
There is a distinguishing factor between civil rights and civil liberties however. Civil liberties are freedoms that protect individuals from arbitrary government interference. Civil rights refer to the government's responsibility to protect entire groups of people and ensure they receive "equal protection under the law."
Civil Liberties
The individual freedoms that Americans exercise are protected by the United States Constitution, which guarantees that neither the federal government nor the state governments will infringe upon a person's rights listed therein. The original Constitution, as written in 1787, had few protections of civil liberties, but this was quickly changed to accommodate the concerns of citizens leery of a centralized government without specific safeguards against tyranny.
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution provide most of the civil liberties for Americans, and we refer to this portion of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. This portion of the Constitution is written in a somewhat vague manner that has been interpreted and challenged numerous times throughout the nation's history. It's also important to remember that though we have the freedoms listed in the Constitution, no freedom is absolute. Exceptions exist for every rule.
The First Amendment
Arguably the most important amendment to the Constitution, it protects people's expressive conduct. The text of the entire amendment 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 freedom listed is that of religion, which has two significant clauses, which are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause essentially guarantees the federal government will not support a national church. Other nations do not follow the same principle, which Americans have come to refer to as the "separation of church and state." For instance, England has an official religion, and the state church is the Church of England. Tax dollars go to the direct funding of these denominations and their activities.
 |
| The 1st Amendment provides Freedom of Religion |
The reason for the Establishment Clause was initially to quell concerns about states' rights. Individual states (9 of the original 13) established state sponsored religions within their borders and had little tolerance for the denominations outside of their beliefs. These states were only concerned in preventing the national government from telling states what religion they ought to endorse. However, the interpretation of the Establishment Clause has changed significantly over time.
The Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that neither the federal government nor the state governments can provide any substantial aid to religious groups or organizations. In the landmark case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three part test so that governments could determine if their actions violated the Establishment Clause. To not be a violation of the Establishment Clause, a government action must pass all three parts. They are:
- The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
- The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice.
- The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs.
For instance, if Congress passed a law requiring church attendance for all federal government employees, would that violate the Establishment Clause?
Examine part 2 of the 'Lemon Test.' Does the law advance or inhibit religious practice? The answer would undoubtedly be yes, and thus, this would cause the law to be ruled unconstitutional.
What if a public school had a church pastor pray over the loudspeaker at the beginning of every football game?
This would most likely fail all three parts of the Lemon Test, and be deemed a violation of the Constitution.
Though the government is limited in what it can do with respect to aiding religion, this should not be interpreted to mean that all forms of assistance to religious organizations are unconstitutional. Religious organizations receive a tax-exempt status, for instance.
Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that governments can provide financial assistance to religious schools in the interest of promoting education.
The second aspect of the freedom of religion pertains to the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees that the government will not punish someone for their religious beliefs. Americans are free to believe in any religion, or no religion at all.
Though religious belief is unrestrained, this does not extend to religious practice. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Free Exercise Clause cannot be used to shield a person from what would otherwise be a crime.
For example, if a person claimed they killed another human as part of their religious worship ceremony, the government would still charge them with a crime because it would otherwise still be a criminal act. The same logic applies to drug usage as part of a religious ceremony and acts of polygamy.
 |
| What is this cartoon's point about the press? |
In nearly all situations, the federal government may not engage in prior restraint, which is another name for censorship. The government cannot prevent a news outlet from publishing or broadcasting information to the public, however, depending on the circumstances, that media outlet can be sued in court if they engage in slander (spoken lies) or libel (printed lies).
One such instance where the federal government may prevent a news story from being published or broadcast is when that story would somehow endanger the security of the nation.
Also, in criminal court cases, judges can issue 'gag orders,' where the media is restricted in what it can publish or broadcast about that trial. In this instance, a defendant's right to fair trial is deemed more important than the freedom of the press.
The First Amendment also protects the individual's freedom of speech. The government cannot restrict a person's right to freely speak and communicate. Free speech has greatly expanded through the history of the United States, and it includes a number of different types of speech.
In the United States, people have a right to speak even the most offensive statements without fear of the government. However, the freedom of speech should not be misconstrued to think that a person may say anything without consequence.
First, a person has the right to speak freely in what is commonly referred to as the public forum. This is any government owned property, where people can freely express themselves. If you are on a college campus, a public street corner, park, or other public locale, a person is free to speak their mind without government interference or punishment.
Some government owned property is not considered a public forum. For instance, speech can be limited in jails or on military bases. These are not considered part of the public forum.
When a person is located on private property, they are subject to the wishes of whomever owns that property. If you wanted to deliver a speech pertaining to abortion rights at your local mall, they would have every right to remove you from the building.
If you frequently post negative or hateful comments on social media pertaining to your employer, they can terminate your employment (presuming it's a private employer).
The freedom of speech protects all manner of expression in the public form, and that extends to non-verbal forms of communication at well. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment. Your actions and conduct are considered to be expressive in communicating your feelings and ideas. For instance, civil rights advocates in the 1960s used a raised fist as a way of communicating 'black power.'
Certain forms of symbolic speech have become controversial, particularly political speech that can be controversial. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court ruled that burning an American flag as part of a political protest was protected under the First Amendment.
Additionally, the ruling in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) deemed donations to, and spending by political campaigns as protected speech.
Contrary to what the general public might believe, hate speech is also protected under the Constitution's freedom of speech provision. Though most people might find a person's speech offensive or disgusting, this alone does not mean the government can create a law to punish that type of conduct.
A government can only punish the speech or conduct of a person if the speech encourages imminent, lawless action (see Brandenburg v. Ohio). This would mean a person would have to make a specific threat that would be likely to happen before they could be punished for their words alone.
 | |
| Obscene material? Not protected speech ... |
This argument was central to the case Miller v. California (1973), when the Supreme Court ruled obscene material was not protected under the First Amendment. So that states could more easily determine what is or is not considered obscene material, the Court created a three-part 'Miller' test, where material had to meet all three criteria to be deemed obscene. The three parts include:
- Whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (meaning, "Was the work created to sexually arouse people?")
- Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
It's important to note, also, that because the Supreme Court ruled that obscene material was not protected by the Constitution does not automatically mean obscene materials are illegal. It means that the federal government and the states are free to make laws about these materials. Governments could choose to completely ignore the issue of sexually explicit material altogether, but they have created regulations that most people agree are important. For instance, to purchase sexually explicit material, a person must be at least 18 years of age. States and local government often create zoning laws limiting where any business can be located that sells sexually explicit materials.
Another form of speech that does not receive protection under the First Amendment is that of speech that falls under the concept of "fighting words." In Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1942), a citizen named Walter Chaplinsky used profane language directed at a police officer. The officer had arrested Chaplinsky for violating state law preventing the use of abusive language directed at another person.
Chaplinsky's attorney argued that these words were protected under the First Amendment. The concept was that though they are considered offensive, that should not allow the government to prevent their use.
 |
| Them's fightin' words ... really ... |
The Supreme Court disagreed and held that Chaplinsky's words amounted to "fighting words," which had no other purpose than to incite an immediate breach of peace. Their rationale in the ruling was that Chaplinsky's words were not only abusive but carried no social value. The freedom of speech was placed in the Constitution so that people would be able to freely communicate their thoughts and ideas. Chaplinsky's words carried no such value, so the government would be justified in creating a law to prevent such actions.
Slander and libel are also unprotected forms of speech. Slander refers to any type of spoken lies a person might say. Libel refers to lies or untruths that are printed or published. If a person or corporation submits false information or lies to the public, they can be held accountable in a civil court, subject to a lawsuit.
There is a difference in whom you speak or print information about. If the speech you make is about a public figure or a public issue, then false information about that person or issue is not regarded as seriously as false information about a private citizen.
Public figures subject themselves to the scrutiny of the general public and thus, receive less protection in terms of what is said or printed about them. This is why it's often difficult for celebrities and politicians to sue tabloid newspapers. Private citizens, however, do not place their lives in the limelight for public consumption. Therefore, they receive more protection because lies and misinformation are far more damaging to them than a public figure.
Freedom of speech in public schools is also a matter of concern because of a conflict between the rights of children to exercise their First Amendment freedoms and running an orderly public school system.
 |
| Yes, this happened. Yes, they were punished. |
School administrators can exercise censorship in student newspapers and television broadcasts, and other publications (such as yearbook) and may also punish students should something be printed or aired without permission or knowledge of the principal.
Other areas of expression or speech that can be limited or punished include:
- Styles of dress
- Different types of dancing
- Signs or non-verbal cues
- Student speeches
- Social media posts
- Text messages
The First Amendment's freedom to peaceably assemble and right to petition the government are often overlooked, but significant to the daily lives of Americans. The freedom to assemble in groups means that as long as a particular group of citizens is acting in a peaceful manner, they can gather together without fear of punishment from the government. We often take this for granted, but in many nations, citizens gathering in groups are not afforded assembly rights. They can be arrested for congregating together, though they may not have any ill intent.
Freedom of assembly protects groups and organizations of all kinds. Interest groups, political parties, religious organizations, corporations, and non-profit organizations all benefit from this freedom. As long as their activities are peaceful, they do not need to fear government punishment or interference.
Group activities typically include protests and other activities on public grounds. These groups are free to assemble and petition the government for some type of change, however, the time, place, and manner in which these activities are held can be restricted. For instance, if an environmental group wanted to hold a rally/parade/protest on a busy public street, a local government would have the right to deny them because such an event would be overly disruptive to the public good.
The Second Amendment
While the First Amendment is often deemed to be the most important amendment, the Second Amendment undoubtedly is the most controversial. The text reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.The precise meaning of the text is constantly debated, but the general consensus from the Supreme Court and the public is that individual citizens have a right to keep and carry guns. The extent to what kinds of guns people have a right to carry and any restrictions placed upon those weapons are subject to debate.
Various state and federal laws have been passed that create some form of restrictions on gun purchases, ownership, and carrying. Those laws have been challenged in some instances, and gun owners have won significant cases that affirm that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.
Some states have serious restrictions on gun ownership and harsh penalties for those who violate the laws. The state of New York requires a lengthy application process for anyone to purchase a gun and limitations exist on when a person may carry or use a gun.
Within the limits of New York City, citizens must obtain a gun permit that requires hundreds of dollars in fees and a lengthy application process that includes not allowing permits based on any number of reasons. These limitations often disqualify citizens from carrying firearms or discourage them from attempting the process because of the number of requirements.
In West Virginia, however, the laws about purchasing and carrying firearms are much less stringent. In the Mountain State, a person may open carry or conceal carry a gun without a permit of any kind.
For a further examination on the difference between states and their gun policies, read this article from The New York Times, detailing the differences between New York and Oregon.
Urban areas with significantly large populations experience more problems with gun violence, thus they have had some of the more restrictive gun policies. Some of these have been struck down by the Supreme Court, including the laws in Washington, D.C. In the nation's capital, citizens could own a firearm with a permit, but were restricted to keeping it in their home. The weapon also was required to be unloaded, disassembled, or have a trigger lock.
In D.C. v. Heller (2009), the Supreme Court noted that cities and states could make laws and policies about firearms, but the policies in place in Washington, D.C. were far too restrictive and impeded on the Second Amendment rights of citizens. The Court's decision overturned D.C.'s gun law, but also allowed for city officials to attempt to make new, less restrictive policies.
The Third Amendment
No one really complains about the Third Amendment. The text is fairly straightforward:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by lawThe need for this amendment stemmed from the Quartering Act forced upon American colonists in the 18th century, but this has never been a real concern for American citizens. Its value today lies in the fact that the text implies a right to privacy. The Supreme Court has never heard a case pertaining to a claim of a person's Third Amendment rights being violated.
The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment protects a person from illegal searches and seizures by governing authorities. It is extremely relevant to the people and the police. The text reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 |
| I'm not kitten' you right meow ... |
The police may search a person or their property provided they have either (a) a valid search warrant (written permission from a court of law) or (b) probable cause (reason to believe a crime has been committed).
Probable cause may exist in a variety of circumstances, in which case a warrant would not be necessary. One such instance is when a person gives consent to be searched. People may forego their Fourth Amendment rights, but should they do such a thing, they are held accountable for any evidence the police may find.
Another common instance where probable cause exists stems from the concept of "plain view" evidence. If a police officer is lawfully present at a location, that officer may seize materials that are said to be in plain view of his field of vision.
Police may conduct searches and seizures if exigent circumstances exist. These refer to any situation where obtaining a warrant would be either impractical or dangerous. This concept allows police to conduct 'stop and frisk' searches of individuals who might be exhibiting signs of dangerous activity or possessing contraband material.
Officers may search motor vehicles, provided they have reason to believe a crime or illegal activity has occurred. Police may not randomly pull over vehicles, however, sobriety checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, so long as the authorities publicize well in advance when and where the checkpoint will occur.
One of the more controversial types of warrant-less searches that occurs pertains to airport security and border searches. Authorities may search a person at any time without suspicion (which occur randomly). However, any search that is more intrusive (such as a cavity search or strip search) must be justified through reasonable suspicion.
When police or other government authorities conduct an 'unreasonable' or illegal search that violates the Fourth Amendment, any evidence that is gained through that search cannot be used against an individual, no matter what the evidence may be. This is referred to the exclusionary rule, established in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
The Fifth Amendment
This part of the Constitution entails five specific protections and with the Sixth Amendment, mainly describes the rights of a person accused of a crime. This amendment is lengthier than the previous four,
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Five key protections exist within the text and all are significant to the legal process.
1. A person cannot be made to stand trial unless they are first 'indicted' by a 'grand jury'. Before a criminal trial ever occurs, a group of citizens called a grand jury looks at the evidence in the case and determines if there is enough evidence for a trial to occur. They do not determine guilt or innocence. If the grand jury believes enough evidence exists to proceed to a trial, then the accused person has been 'indicted' (in-dye-ted).
 |
| One shot, one opportunity ... |
3. A person cannot be required to be a witness against himself. During a trial, an accused person cannot be forced to testify. The Supreme Court has also ruled that during a police interrogation, a suspect does not have to speak to police about anything.
4. A person cannot be imprisoned or have their property taken unless they have first been given due process of law. In most cases, due process means that an accused individual must be afforded all procedures and processes given to an accused person. They must be given a trial by jury, an attorney, a speedy trial, etc.
5. Finally, the government cannot take private property from citizens unless the property is to be used for the public good and the owner is fairly compensated for the loss of property. This is commonly referred to as eminent domain.
The Sixth Amendment
Like the Fifth Amendment, this provides certain guarantees to those accused of crimes. The text reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In short, this amendment provides seven key guarantees when accused of a crime.
1. A speedy and public trial. The term 'speedy' isn't clearly defined but the government has stated that a federal case must begin within 100 days of a person being charged with a crime.
2. An impartial jury where the crime was committed.
3. Right to know the charges against you.
4. Right to confront the witnesses that would testify against you.
5. Right to compel witnesses to appear on your behalf.
6. Right to have an attorney (even if you cannot afford one).
The Seventh Amendment
Often referred to as one of the "forgotten amendments," this part of the Constitution guarantees that a person has the right to a jury trial in civil cases (lawsuits) concerning more than $20. That dollar figure was a significant sum in the 18th century, but has remained unchanged since being adopted into the Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment
The text here pertains to what happens to individuals who are being imprisoned or detained by the government:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.The fines or bail demanded by the government must fit the crime, along with any other form of punishment. The amount of money that can be levied against a person is not clearly defined, and has changed over time. What is considered 'cruel' or 'unusual' has also changed somewhat over time, but the most controversial issue with the Eighth Amendment is capital punishment.
Does imposing the death penalty qualify as cruel or unusual? The Supreme Court has stated that while executing a criminal is not necessarily cruel or unusual, there are some forms of capital punishment that would definitely violate a person's rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that executing mentally impaired citizens is unconstitutional, as is the case for criminals who committed crimes while under the age of 18.
The Ninth Amendment
The text and the purpose of the Ninth Amendment are incredibly short and incredibly vague. The text reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The fundamental meaning of this text is that people have more rights than what are listed in the Constitution. There's no way that the Framers of the Constitution could have thought of every single right that citizens should have, so this makes certain the list of rights is not an exhaustive list.
No comments:
Post a Comment