The guarantees the freedom of speech whereas it 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.�

Over the years, the has struggled to determine exactly what constitutes protected speech. Some jurists believe that freedom of speech is unconditional while others believe that the places limitations on speech under certain conditions. The prevailing thought is the latter; whereas it grants a person the right not to speak. For example, declining to salute the flag of the United States as in the case of , 319 U.S. 624 (1943) or to engage in symbolic speech like flag burning as in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

In 1989, the United States Congress passed the Flag Protection Act (18 USC § 700) which reads: “Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.� There were several challenges to this act two of the seminal cases are Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman. In both cases, the actors set fire to the United States Flag as a form of protest. The question posed to the United States Supreme Court: Whether or not the First Amendment right of free speech protected their actions? The Court ruled that flag burning is considered protected speech under the First Amendment.

The Court has also been called upon to decide what is not protected speech such as inciting actions that would harm others (yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater), students making obscene speech during school sponsored events, Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), or to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration, , 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

In , Fraser a male student, gave a speech during a public assembly where he nominated another male student, used an “elaborate, graphic and explicit sexual metaphorâ€� aka “Double entendresâ€� which means that he used words capable of two meanings: (1) obvious interpretations (2) subtle interpretation usually sexually suggestive to describe him. Fraser’s speech was as follows:
“I know a man who is firm – he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm – but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he’ll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn’t attack things in spurts – he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally – he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end – even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he’ll never come [long pause] between us and the best our school can be. He is firm enough to give it everything.”

Fraser was suspended for two days and the father filed a lawsuit in federal District Court alleging violates of Fraser’s First Amendment right to free speech. The Court ruled in favor of Fraser. Bethel appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of Fraser. Bethel appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of obscene and offensive language. Chief Justice Warren Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech and “it was perfectly appropriate for the school to disassociate itself to make the point to the pupils that vulgar speech and lewd conduct is wholly inconsistent with the “fundamental values” of public school education.â€�

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, journalism students in were in the process of publishing a school-sponsored newspaper. One issue featured stories on teen pregnancy and divorce. The school’s principal thought the stories were inappropriate and prior to the publication, he deleted the two pages containing the stories without informing the journalism students. The students were upset because they had not been given the opportunity to make changes. The students felt their First Amendment rights had been violated, they filed suit in the . The Court sided with the school, ruling that the school had the authority to remove and regulate speech they deemed appropriate. The students appealed the decision to the . The appeals court reversed the lower court, finding that the paper was a “public forum” and that school officials could censor its content only under extreme circumstances. The school appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court and reversed the appellate court decision ruling that a school does not have to allow student speech if it is inconsistent with the schools’ educational policy.

The post What Is Freedom of Speech? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Freedom of Association refers to the right to join others or become a member of an organization united for a legal common cause or purpose without interference. Although the right to associate is not an independent constitutional right it originates from and contingent on the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and expression.

One early case to recognize the freedom of association was in the , , 357 U.S. 449 (1958). In this case, the a non-profit membership corporation organized under the laws opened an office in the in violation of state statute that required a foreign corporation to “qualify before doing business in the State by filing its corporate charter and designating a place of business and an agent to receive service of process.�

The State brought an equity suit in state court alleging that the NAACP activities was causing “irreparable injury to the citizens of the State for which criminal prosecution and civil actions at law afforded no adequate relief� and sought to prohibit the NAACP from conducting activities and to have them ousted from the State. The court issued an ex parte order restraining the NAACP from engaging in further activities and forbid the organization from operating in the state. The NAACP moved to dissolve the restraining order contending that its activities did not subject it to the qualification requirements of the statute and what the State sought to accomplish by its suit would violate its rights to freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. On the State’s motion, the court ordered the production of membership records along with other records of the organization and the NAACP eventually produced the requested records except for the membership list whereas they were found in contempt of court and fined $10,000. The denied certiorari to review the contempt judgment but was granted it by the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether or not Alabama’s requirement of the membership list violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that in disclosing the NAACP membership lists it would reveal the identity of the members and based on previous occasions these revelations would expose those members “to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility� and if the NAACP were compelled to disclose its members list it would be an effective curtailing on members freedom of association as well as adversely affect the organization’s ability express their own views.

The Court further opined that the “freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the , which embraces freedom of speech.â€� As stated previously stated, freedom of association is not a right as enumerated in the but this landmark case firmly establishes that freedom of association is tied to freedom of speech.

If you believe that, your freedom to associate or were violated, contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York at 1-800-371-4835. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post What is Freedom of Association? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..