The First Amendment By:Jennifer Huerta

1st Amendment Explained 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 amendment doesn't allow the government to favor religions and allows the individual to practice their beliefs. It also gives individuals the right to express themselves through speech or writing. It let's people assemble which means that people are allowed to protest ONLY in a peaceful manner. It allows citizens to tell the government changes they wish to be done.

Schenck v. United States (1919) The case was about a socialist named Charles Schenck who was making flyers about how World War I draft was considered “involuntary servitude ” .The Government argued that he was causing others to disobey military authority while Schenck argued that the 1st amendment gave him freedom of speech. The Supreme Court convicted him for not following the Espionage Act of 1917 which didn't let people speak badly about the U.S government or military during time of war. This court case set the boundary for how limitless the freedom of speech and press really is.It also set the "clear and present danger" test by Justice Holmes which lasted only 50yrs and was replace by "imminent lawless action", which is a test still used today to chose what speech is protected by the first amendment based on if it invokes violence.

Texas v. Johnson(1989) Johnson was a protestor outside of the convention center where the Republican Convention was taking place.He did not agree with Ronald Regan's policies and lit the U.S flag. Texas took him to court because that's where the burning took place.They argued that he was making people fearful and that burning the flag was disrespectful to the Government.The Court went to the Supreme Court because it involved the Federal flag. The Supreme Court sided with Johnson saying that burning the flag was a symbolic type of speech ,and while offensive to some the Government can't prohibit him expressing himself.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Chaplinsky was a Jehovah Witness who was handing out flyers and information on his religion.He also was making speeches in which talked bad about other religions. The people of the town complained and then decided to beat him up. Police soon came to escort him and as the cop escorted him he began to curse at him and his assaulters. The cop then proceeded to arrest Chaplinsky based on: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words — those which by their utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The Supreme Court ruled in favor of arresting Chaplinsky based on this because,he had given the people a reason to beat him up. Although Chaplinsky argued he was allowed freedom of speech and religion, the court said those rights are limited in certain circumstances like his.

Bibliography https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_schenck.html https://www.change.org/p/clarify-the-imminent-lawless-action-test http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/fighting-words-case-still-making- waves-on-70th-anniversary