For only being forty-five words long, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is powerful for not only journalists but also every citizens to understand and respect. With mass communication being what it is today, it is hard to pin-point what exactly the First Amendment is stating. Supreme Court Justices have interpreted the amendment in different ways, but can all agree that it is not an absolute ban on what the government can and cannot regulate in terms of press and speech. Unfortunately, the founders did not leave many records as to what they meant by freedom of speech and press, so justices and historians have to look at the historical time period in which the amendment was created and what was going on during that time in the first thirteen colonies. Some justices believe that the Constitution is a living document that is subject to change as society changes; this is especially important because the founders of the Constitution could not have known that we would be communicating through internet at the time the document was created. However, other justices think that this flexibility assumption essentially gives them the right to completely change the protections of the First Amendment as they see fit, no matter the circumstances.
In terms of court decisions, justices weigh constitutional interests on one side of a case against the competing side in the practice of ad hoc balancing. This balancing has courts make decisions based on specific facts under review of the case rather than on the basis of more generalized principles. Decisions of the court are also based on what category of speech or press the case is referring too. As stated in the text, “Simply put, the Court has decided that some types of speech deserve a lot of protection; some, less; others, none at all.” Political speech, for example, is fully protected under the First Amendment, but child pornography has absolutely no protection under the amendment. When a case involves a loose category of speech, such as fighting words, the court uses categorical balance to determine an outcome. This balance looks beyond the speech itself to consider the harm the speech caused and the circumstances of the speech method to reach a punishment.
The Supreme Court frequently identifies six core values of speech freedom that also help them make decisions within the courtroom.
- Individual Liberty- freedom of speech is a basic human right.
- Self-Government- freedom of speech gives citizens the right to form and discuss opinions relating to political personal and policies. This is a structure of our democracy, and was not allowed until the Sedition Act expired during the eighteenth century. The United States Supreme Court never reviewed the Act as it was expiring, and today’s justices believe that the court decided that the Act was in fact unconstitutional.
- Limited Government Power- freedom of speech serves as almost a check and balance system of the government as a whole, limiting the power the government has.
- Attainment of Truth- freedom of speech increases knowledge and discovery of truth by promoting open public discussion to expand understanding.
- Safety Valve- freedom of speech allows citizens to express their disagreements and problems before turning to violence. Free speech is a way to “let off steam.”
- Its Own End- as stated in the text, “Free speech, like clean air, or beauty, or justice, is an end in and of itself, a valuable good and a cherished right.”
As mass communication continues to change, so will the decisions of the Supreme Court in relation to the freedom of speech and press. As journalists, it is our job to not only respect the First Amendment, but also use it to our advantage when reporting needed information, even if that information will cause a public uprising. Journalists should strive to tell the truth in all situations.
Journalism & Law 