First Amendment and Television
The subject of television and censorship has long been an issue of heated debates across the country.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"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" (U.S. pp).
On June 8, 1789 James Madison introduced his version of the speech and press clauses in the House of Representatives, stating, "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable" (Freedom pp). The special committee rewrote the language somewhat, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, making it read, "The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed" (Freedom pp). This is the form that went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: "That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (Freedom pp). Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate and the final language was agreed upon in conference (Freedom pp).
The '"simple, acknowledged principles" embodied in the First Amendment have often been the issue of controversy both in the courts and out (Freedom pp). Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone:
"The liberty...
Many conservatives believe that the Anti- Establishment Clause prohibits only the actual establishment of a national religion in the manner of the English Crown. To them, the right to freedom of religion is all that the First Amendment guarantees, not the right to be free from religion (Dershowitz, p. 202). Luckily for those who consider themselves atheists and agnostics, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to include the separation of
1st Amendment and Virtual Child Pornography The question whether "virtual child pornography" should be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution depends on whether it is a category of speech that falls under the free speech guarantee of this constitutional provision. The First Amendment in its relevant part provides that "Congress shall make no law & #8230; abridging the freedom of speech." The constitutional guarantee of free speech is
Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example of a religious entity that claims the right the First Amendment freedom of religion clauses. Jehovah's Witnesses may act as a thorn in many families across America, however, they have been the root cause of much of our freedom of religion laws. Jehovah's Witnesses brought many cases of religion to the court system in the 1930s and 1940s. Before then, the court system handled
1st Amendment Protections for Child Pornography: The 2002 Decision in the Case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Laws have been passed outlawing child pornography in its various formats. It is forbidden by law to use a minor younger than age eighteen for visual depictions of sexually explicit acts. Possessions of such photographs are forbidden, and in 1966 the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) forbade trafficking in visual productions of
1st Amendment Issues A highly controversial decision rendered on January 21st of this year by the Supreme Court, affirming the right of corporations and other organizations to enjoy consideration as "persons" and the 1st amendment protections afforded by that status, threatens to undermine the foundation of this country's democratic process. With their closely contested 5-4 decision in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the high court's conservative members have
MEDIA LAW: Argue Against: Discuss 1st amendment implications Family Prevention Tobacco Act 2009. Are tobacco The Family Prevention Tobacco Act of 2009 was one of the more controversial pieces of legislature passed in recent times, for the simple fact that it gave a great deal of authority to the Food and Drug Administration to limit the effectiveness of the tobacco industry and its various companies to sell its products. There are
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now