How is amendment 1 used today

The Supreme Court has held that the government cannot constitutionally prohibit the publication of classified information unless it can demonstrate that the publication or distribution of that information will cause a clear and present danger of grave harm to the national security. At the same time, though, the Court has held that government employees who gain access to such classified information can be restricted in their unauthorized disclosure of that information.

Snepp v. It remains an open question, however, whether a government employee who leaks information that discloses an unconstitutional, unlawful, or unwise classified program can be punished for doing so. This issue has been raised by a number of recent incidents, including the case of Edward Snowden.

At some point in the future, the Court will have to decide whether and to what extent the actions of government leakers like Edward Snowden are protected by the First Amendment. Direct contributions to candidates, as opposed to independent speech about them, can be restricted, as the Court has held. But I agree these are likely to be heavily debated issues in the coming years. Many professionals serve their clients by speaking.

Psychotherapists try to help their patients by talking with them. Doctors make diagnoses, offer predictions, and recommend treatments. Lawyers give legal advice; financial planners, financial advice.

Some of these professionals also do things such as prescribe drugs, perform surgeries, or file court documents that have legal effect. But much of what they do is speak. Yet the law heavily regulates such speakers. And the law sometimes forbids or compels particular speech by these professionals.

Many states, hoping to persuade women not to get abortions, require doctors to say certain things or show certain things to women who are seeking abortions.

When are these laws constitutional? Moreover, if there is a First Amendment exception that allows such regulations of professional-client speech, which professions does it cover? What about, for instance, tour guides, fortunetellers, veterinarians, or diet advisors? Some speech contains information that helps people commit crimes, or get away with committing crimes.

Sometimes this is general information, for instance about how bombs are made, how locks can be picked, how deadly viruses can be created, how technological protections for copyrighted works can be easily evaded, or how a contract killer can get away with his crime.

Sometimes this is specific information, such as the names of crime witnesses that criminals might want to silence, the location of police officers whom criminals might want to avoid, or the names of undercover officers or CIA agents. Indeed, sometimes this can be as familiar as people flashing lights to alert drivers that a police officer is watching; people are occasionally prosecuted for this, because they are helping others get away with speeding. And sometimes it is said for political purposes, for instance when someone describes how easy it is to evade copyright law or proposed laws prohibiting 3-D printing of guns, in trying to explain why those laws need to be rejected.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never explained when such speech can be restricted. The narrow incitement exception, which deals with speech that aims to persuade people to commit imminent crimes, is not a good fit for speech that, deliberately or not, informs people about how to commit crimes at some point in the future.

This too is a field that the Supreme Court will likely have to address in coming decades. Finally, some government agencies, courts, and universities have reasoned that the government may restrict speech that sufficiently offends employees, students, or business patrons based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and the like.

Private employers are paying attention, and restricting such speech by their employees. Can speech be restricted, and if so, when? How did freedom of the press come about? Are there restrictions on press freedom? The ways in which this core freedom has developed in law are explained in this overview by a First Amendment scholar. The First Amendment introduced bold new ideas to the world: that government must not impose a state religion on the public, or place undue restrictions on religious practice, but must recognize the right of the people to believe and worship, or not, as their conscience dictates.

Freedom of assembly allows people to gather in groups as long as they are peaceful. And the right to petition the government makes it possible for people to lobby the government, point out where it does not follow its own laws, and to sue if a wrong has occurred.

The First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. To protect individual rights, the framers of the U. Constitution added 10 amendments to the document in , three years after the Constitution was ratified. For example, a person cannot force the tenets of his or her religion on others while trying to practice that religion.

Also, different types of speech have different amounts of freedom. Political speech is considered different than commercial speech, which includes advertisements. That is where the courts come in. The meaning of the First Amendment has been the subject of disputes over the years and continuing interpretation by the courts.

Landmark Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment have dealt with the rights of citizens to protest U. Explore More Rights Topics.

Rights Main Federalism is one of the most important and innovative concepts in the U. Learn More. Your purchase supports PBS and helps make our programming possible. Shop PBS Amazon. Support your local PBS station in our mission to inspire, enrich, and educate.

Stream the best of PBS. Anytime, anywhere.