As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 79,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.
Try it risk-freeAlready registered? Log in here for access
Jennifer has taught various courses in U.S. Government, Criminal Law, Business, Public Administration and Ethics and has an MPA and a JD.
The freedom of speech, press, and assembly is defined as the general freedom of the individual and the press to gather together freely and express opinions. These rights first began when the settlers first came over to the United States from Europe and created the original British colonies. British speech regulations were severe, and criticizing the government was a crime. It became important for these settlers, and those that came after them, to be able to speak out publicly regarding their political opinions freely and without fear of retaliation. Out of these concerns arose the importance of the freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
These clauses are encompassed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It represents that, 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' These freedoms, included within the First Amendment, are applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedom of speech is defined as the free flow of information, ideas, and opinions in our society. It is this free flow that makes our country democratic. When our government attempts to regulate our speech, it is the job of the court to determine if the government's reason outweighs the importance of our democratic freedoms. The courts have shown that the content, or what we are actually saying, is more likely to be protected from government regulation than conduct, or what we are doing during the speech.
Specifically, for the government to regulate the content of a speech, it would have to be shown that the regulation was necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. An example of this would be if the state of Ohio were to make a law requiring that proceeds of books that criminals write about their crimes be held in a trust for five years to pay back victims of the crimes.
What would this do to the criminal's right to tell their story - to their right of free speech? Would this prevent them from writing the book in the first place? This would violate the criminal's right to freedom of speech because the importance of victims being paid back restitution is not compelling enough of a state interest that it would outweigh the criminal's First Amendment freedom of speech. An example of speech content that would not be protected would be if that same criminal were to publish in their books obscene photos of minor children. This type of content is typically not protected.
As much as the government is hard-pressed to regulate the content of what we want to say, they're also hard-pressed to make us say anything at all! The First Amendment freedom of speech allows us to express our opinions freely and not express them at all. Courts have ruled that the state cannot force school children to salute flags or say a pledge to our flag.
With regards to conduct, the court has given our government more discretion in regulating the conduct that occurs during speech rather than speech itself. The government may adopt time, place, and manner regulations. These can be defined as regulations that dictate the time, place, and manner in which an individual may conduct speech. These regulations must be narrowly, or specifically, drawn to achieve an important government interest.
A time, place, and manner regulation that a demonstration may not be held in a hospital zone would be an example of a regulation that would be upheld. What horrible things could happen if a few hundred people were demonstrating outside of a hospital? Would EMTs be able to arrive in ambulances timely? Would the doctors be able to get into the building to do their jobs? We can see why a regulation of this sort makes sense and would be upheld.
An example of a time, place, and manner regulation that would not be upheld would be a state regulation prohibiting an individual from burning a U.S. flag. This behavior, done in the proper place and manner, is not likely to dangerously disturb the peace in most cases, so the conduct would be protected.
The press typically has no greater freedom of speech than the general citizenry does. However, the freedom of the press concept encompasses a few special issues that have arisen since the freedom was created. The freedom of the press concept can be defined as the freedom of speech rights that are guaranteed to the press. In addition to the regulations of conduct and content mentioned above and because of the nature of why the press exists, there are certain areas that have been addressed by the courts to clarify what that freedom means to the press.
The First Amendment freedom of speech has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the press has access to court proceedings barring extremely rare circumstances. This freedom has been extended to all parts of court proceedings, filings, and parties. It has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot regulate what is placed on public television outside of speech that has been determined to be too obscene to be broadcasted while children are likely to be listening. What does this all boil down to? Our democratic right to receive biased, or unbiased, information from outside sources is paramount to only hearing what the government wants us to.
Interestingly, the First Amendment does not mention a right of freedom of association. However, the courts have interpreted the right of people to gather together to express their opinions or political beliefs to be protected speech. Courts have found that if the government wants to regulate the right of people to assemble, that the regulation needs to have a compelling reason that cannot be achieved in any other way than preventing people from assembling.
The individual states in the United States work hard at ending discrimination. States have a compelling reason to become interested in private clubs that, as a whole, have an impact on business. So long as the state coming into the group and preventing it from discriminating does not have an impact on the members' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, it is allowed.
Most of our election laws fall under the freedom of assembly protection of the First Amendment. Again, there must be a compelling reason for the state to get involved in the process and regulate. For example, a state law limiting campaign contributions would be upheld by the courts. This law would be upheld because the government has a significant interest in preventing corruption. On the other hand, laws prohibiting anonymous campaign literature are not valid. Why? The government does not have a compelling interest in preventing political speech just because someone's name isn't attached.
The freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment continues to be interpreted by courts across the United States every day. The fact that it continues to be a hot topic in the media and in the courts is a testament to the importance of these rights to the public today, as well as at the time of their initial creation.
The freedom of speech, press, and assembly are encompassed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. All three of the freedoms have in common the right of the individual to say and associate with whom they choose within legal reason, barring a few exceptions. These freedoms are applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment and have stood the test of time without major change in the United States.
After completing this lesson, you should be able to:
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Already a member? Log In
BackAlready registered? Log in here for access
Did you know… We have over 200 college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1,500 colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.
To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page
Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Study.com has thousands of articles about every imaginable degree, area of study and career path that can help you find the school that's right for you.
Back To Course
Political Science 102: American Government17 chapters | 128 lessons | 7 flashcard sets
{{courseNav.course.topics.length}} chapters | {{courseNav.course.mDynamicIntFields.lessonCount}} lessons | {{course.flashcardSetCount}} flashcard set{{course.flashcardSetCoun > 1 ? 's' : ''}}
Next Lesson
