The First Amendment 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."
As I was browsing Wikipedia for the
assignment over the first amendment,
I read through several examples of
people being prosecuted for violating
the amement.
The following, to me,
is kind of what I was trying to refer to in class.
"Thus, the Supreme Court effectively shaped the First Amendment
in such a manner as to permit a multitude of restrictions on speech.
Further restrictions on speech were accepted by the Supreme Court
when it decided Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Sanford suggested that
states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve
danger to the public peace and to the security of the state."
Lawmakers were given the freedom to decide which speech
would constitute a danger."
So, if we go with the example in class,
I would assume media based on one groups
hatred for another, could be seen
as a danger to the public peace. Yes?
So I suppose to answer the question we were given,
the first amendment to me,
represents the freedom of speech
to the extent that it does not infringe on
someone else's right for personal safety.
Maybe?
Maybe I'm still not getting it.
I supoose we'll discuss this in class
and someone can explain it to me then.
I'm out.
♥Erin