| 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. |
Introduction
Although First
Amendment
jurisprudence is almost entirely a creation that began in the 20th
century,
common law protection for free speech began much earlier, in the 18th
and
19th centuries.
The trial of
printer John
Peter Zenger in 1735 was a landmark in the development of common law
protection
for free speech. In the Zenger case, a New York jury returned a
verdict
of "not guilty" on a charge of seditious libel--in contrast to the
practice
in England where juries were permitted only to decide whether the
defendant
printed the allegedly libelous words. As a result of the
precedent
set in the Zenger case, and the reluctance of juries to support
prosecutions
for seditious libel, the common law of seditious libel in America
became
generally unenforceable.
In England,
meanwhile,
thinking about free speech issues was strongly influenced by William
Blackstone
who, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), wrote
of
the liberty of press as consisting "in laying no previous restraints
upon
publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when
published."
Blackstone's
view of no
prior restraints formed the bare minimum of protection that James
Madison
intended to protect when he, as a congressman from Virginia in the
first
House of Representatives, drafted the Bill of Rights. Of course,
most observers believe that Madison meant to protect a great deal more
speech than Blackstone might have been inclined to protect.
Madison's
original draft
of the Bill of Rights contained two proposed amendments dealing with
freedom
of speech. One proposed amendment said "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, one of the great bulwarks of liberty,
shall
be inviolable." The other proposed amendment of Madison read: "No
state
shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or of the press."
Congress,
however, did not support Madison's efforts to apply free speech
protections
against the states, even though Madison called that amendment the "most
valuable amendment on the whole list." (It would not be until the
1920s, when the Supreme Court held the First Amendment protections to
be
incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, that freedom of speech
guarantees
would apply against the states.)

James Madison, drafter of the First Amendment.
Just seven
years after
adoption of the First Amendment, Congress passed the Sedition Act of
1798.
The Act was enforced against Republican papers in an effort to keep
Jefferson's
party from defeating the Federalists in the 1800 election.
Jefferson
won anyway, and the Sedition Act expired by its own terms in 1801,
without
ever being tested by the Supreme Court. The Act did, however,
touch
off a lively debate on free speech issues and prompted both Madison and
Jefferson to write discourses on freedom of speech and the press.
Although a few
First Amendment
cases, often involving obscenity, were decided by the federal courts in
the 1800s, it was not until World War I that the Supreme Court really
began
to develop the jurisprudence that will be our study.
Questions
1. If a referendum
were held
today on whether to adopt the First Amendment, do you think it would
pass?
2. Polls show
that
most Americans support free speech in theory, but when asked
more
specific questions such as "Should Americans be free to advocate
communism?"
most persons polled are far less willing to support free speech
values.
How to you explain this?
3. Which of
the three
general approaches to First Amendment analysis is best?
Why?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
4. Which of
the values
served by the Free Speech Clause to you consider to be the most
important?
Why?
5. What are
some of
the costs of protecting free speech? Which are the most
significant
costs in your opinion? |

The burning of John Peter Zenger's The New
York
Weekly Journal. Zenger was tried in 1735 on charges of
seditious
libel, but was acquitted by a jury in what is a landmark in free
speech law. For information on the Zenger case see: ZENGER
TRIAL
Three Possible
Approaches to
First Amendment Analysis
1. The Absolutist Approach
The absolutist approach is most often
associated with
Justice Black, who held that the First Amendment meant exactly what it
says: that Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of
speech.
Under this approach, the only question is whether the action in conduct
is truly "speech" (and therefore protected) or "conduct" (and therefore
subject to reasonable governmental regulation. Even absolutists
such
as Justice Black recognized that words might be so closely connected
with
producing a specific action (such as entering into a contract with a
hitman
or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater) as to be unprotected.
2. The Categorical Approach
The categorical
approach would
protect or not protect speech based on the label that is attached to
the
speech in question. Certain categories of speech are seen (such
as,
for example, obscenity or "fighting words" or--at one time--commercial
speech) as falling entirely outside of First Amendment protection,
whereas
most other categories of speech are either highly protected or
protected
absolutely.
3. The Balancing Approach
The balancing approach rejects the
absolutist approach
as impracticable and the categorical approach as artificial.
Balancers
believe that in every case courts should weigh the individual's
interest
in free expression against the government's interest in restricting the
speech in question. Most balancers hold that the presumption
should
be in favor of free expression--that there is a thumb on that side of
the
scale--which can only be overcome with a showing of an especially
strong
governmental interest. (Some commentators have
distinguished
between "definitional" and "categorical" balancers. The
definitional
balancers favor the sort of ad hoc balancing in which every individual
factual difference of a particular defendant could affect the
balancing,
whereas the categorical balancers look at the interests of speakers in
the category that the includes the defendant.) |
Values Served by
the Protecting
of Free Speech
1. The Discovery of Truth
This value was first suggested by
Milton, who first
suggested that when truth and falsehood are allowed to freely grapple,
truth will win out.
2. Facilitating Participation by
Citizens
in Political Decision-Making
It has been
suggested that citizens
will not make wise and informed choices in elections if candidates and
proponents of certain policies are restricted in their ability to
communicate
positions.
3. Creating a More Adaptable
and Stable
Community (The "Safety Valve" Function)
It has been
suggested that a
society in which angry and alienated citizens are allowed to speak
their
mind--"vent"--will be more stable, as people will be less likely to
resort
to violence. It has also been pointed out that allowing the
alienated
and discontented to speak freely enables government to better monitor
potentially
dangerous groups who would otherwise act more clandestinely.
4. Assuring Individual
Self-Fulfillment
Free speech
enables individuals
to express themselves, create and identify--and, in the process
perhaps,
find kindred spirits. Freedom of speech thus becomes an aspect of
human dignity.
5. Checking Abuse of
Governmental Power
As Watergate,
Irangate, Clintongate
(and all the other "gates") demonstrate, freedom of the press enables
citizens
to learn about abuses of power--and then do something about the abuse
at
the ballot box, if they feel so moved.
6. Promoting Tolerance
It has been argued
that freedom
of speech, especially through our practice of extending
protection
to speech that we find hateful or personally upsetting, teaches us to
become
more tolerant in other aspects of life--and that a more tolerant
society
is a better society.
7. Creating a More Robust
and Interesting
Community
A community in
which free speech
is valued and protected is likely to be a more energized, creative
society
as its citizens actively fulfill themselves in many diverse and
interesting
ways. |
Links
First Amendment Center
A
Panoramic History of the First Amendment (Ostrowski)
American
Library Association
Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press
Freedom
Forum Site
Notes on Learning
|