by Josh Stringer

Created on: March 14, 2009   Last Updated: March 16, 2009

Yet what does the freedom of expression protect? It cannot be reasonably be claimed that the Constitution extends its protection to all verbal and non-verbal communication. As Holmes said: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (For reference look up Schenck Vs. United States (1991).) But why not? The reason is that their are no qualifications to the guarantee of freedom of speech in the text of the First Amendment. The key is that the Constitution prohibits laws from "abridging the freedom of speech" and not all laws restricting communication. We will learn how to make that amendment work for us later in the article.

Lets take a quick overview then talk about how profanity fits in as protected free speech.

The Supreme Court has stated that "above all else, the First Amendment means the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." (For reference look up Police Department of Chicago Vs. Mosley (1972).) Nevertheless, the Court has frequently upheld laws imposing content-based restrictions on speech. The main approch used to reconcile such holdings is as follows. Some speech is categorically excluded from the First Amendment or given a lesser degree of protection under the First Amendment. In the case, (Chaplinsky Vs. New Hampshire (1942).) the court stated: "There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of witch has never been thought to raise Constitutional problems." Thus, we do not ask whether particular obscene publications are protected by the First Amendment. Obscenity is not the kind of expression with witch "the freedom of speech" is concerned. That however dose not mean that it is not protected. It just says that "the freedom of speech" will not actively pursue protection yet will not decline it.

The First Amendment is versatile and can be bent both ways. A few of these tactics are, Vagueness and Overbreadth, Prior Restraint, and The Clear and Present Danger. The Clear and Present Danger tactic is mostly relevant to this article. The Clear and Present Danger tactic was used by Justice Holmes in (Schenck Vs. United States (1991).) Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>