The History of the First Amendment

The History of the First Amendment
The Bill of Rights, which consisted of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, was ratified on December 15, 1791, and the First Amendment was one of its components. Certain individual rights, such as the freedoms of expression, assembly, and religion, are guaranteed constitutional protection under the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. The phrase "freedom of expression" is used throughout the First Amendment without being defined in any particular way. The majority of the responsibility for determining which kinds of speech should be protected by the law and which shouldn't has been given to the courts. The freedom to freely express one's thoughts and get information is one of the fundamental liberties protected by the First Amendment. Simply put, it implies that individuals are free to voice their opinions (even if those opinions are unfavorable or unpopular) without the fear of being censored by the government. It safeguards every mode of expression, from public utterances to artistic creations and other media types.
The Anti-Federalist resistance to the Constitution's adoption was intended to be appeased by the proposal of the Bill of Rights. At its inception, the First Amendment was only applicable to laws that Congress passed, and many of its clauses were read in a manner that was more restrictive than it is now. With Gitlow v. New York, the first decision in which the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the integration of the First Amendment into state law started.
A wall of separation between religion and the state was called for by the Supreme Court in the decision of Everson v. Board of Education (1947), even if the precise boundary of this barrier is still up to debate. Several court judgments in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries upheld different political and educational speech types. These rulings also established several exceptions to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Due to these decisions, people's freedom of speech has grown tremendously (Paul). The United States Supreme Court overturned the English common law practice of lower proof requirements in defamation and libel cases, most notably in New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964). The First Amendment affords less protection to political speech than commercial speech; as a result, commercial communication is susceptible to a higher degree of control.
The Free Press Clause applies to many media and protects facts and ideas from being suppressed. Prior restraint, or pre-publication censorship, was declared unconstitutional in almost all circumstances by the Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v. the United States (1971). Both the Near v. Minnesota (1931) and the New York Times v. United States (1932) decisions dealt with this issue (1971). Freedom to petition the federal government is protected under the Constitutional Petition Clause. According to the Supreme Court, that right of assembly is implicitly safeguarded by this amendment and given by this provision. It is a popular misperception that the First Amendment bans anybody from restricting free speech, including private organizations not part of the government. This is not the case; the First Amendment only applies to state actors. In addition, the Supreme Court has decided that there is a limit to the protections afforded to free expression.
Background of the First Amendments
Individuals have the right to seek redress for their complaints under the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, which were drafted in 1215 and 1689, respectively. In the second year of the American Revolutionary War, the Virginia colonial assembly issued a Declaration of Rights. "The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be curtailed except by dictatorial Governments" was included in the Declaration of Rights. Eight of the remaining twelve states made similar pledges. However, these words were generally seen as "mere admonitions to state legislators" rather than legally obligatory requirements.
On September 17, 1787, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia suggested a new constitution with a stronger chief executive, among other reforms, after many years of weak administration under the Articles of Confederation. A more strong government might begin with this. Thomas Jefferson and George Mason proposed a bill of rights to ensure that citizens' civil liberties would be safeguarded and clearly defined by a constitution (Paul). James Madison, who would go on to write the Bill of Rights, considered that the current state protections of civil freedoms were sufficient. These delegates argued that any attempt to enumerate individual rights could imply that the government did not protect other, unnamed rights. Following a short discussion on the matter, the state delegates all voted against Mason's suggestion. Hence it was ultimately rejected.
However, for the constitution to be approved, nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify it in state conventions for it to be considered complete. The argument against ratification, known as "Anti-Federalism," was partially founded on the belief that the Constitution did not provide sufficient safeguards for civil freedoms. A successful proposal was made by proponents of the Constitution in states where the general opinion was against ratification of the Constitution to have their state conventions approve the Constitution while also calling for the inclusion of a bill of rights.
According to what the Supreme Court noted in Gillette v. the United States (1970), one of the primary goals of the First Amendment is to guarantee that the government would remain neutral in all issues about religion. In the case of Wallace v. Jaffree, which took place in 1985, the history of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, as well as the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence about both sections, was discussed. At the very beginning of its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the First Amendment places equal restrictions on the ability of Congress and the states to restrict the individual liberties it safeguards. The purpose of the First Amendment was to limit the power of Congress to interfere with an individual's right to think, worship, and express oneself by the directives of their conscience. The adoption of the First Amendment accomplished this. The Due Process Clause included in the Fourteenth Amendment places the same restrictions on the states as the First Amendment has historically rated on Congress.
Freedom of Expression
The concept of "freedom of speech" refers to the capacity of a person or group of people to freely express their opinions, thoughts, ideas, and feelings over a variety of topics without being censored by the government. The right of people to exercise their freedom of religion, expression, press, petition, and assembly is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The phrase "freedom of speech" is used by some academics to refer to a category that includes many liberties. Most state constitutions also have sections that safeguard citizens' right to free speech. Some provide protections that are even more extensive than the First Amendment. The right to freely express oneself is necessary to protect individual liberty and contributes significantly to what the Supreme Court calls the "marketplace of ideas." The First Amendment operates on the presumption that the person doing the speaking, and not the government, should determine the significance of what is said.
Freedom of Expression During Covid
People's access to accurate and up-to-date information that can assist them in coping with the worsening global health crisis has been severely hindered as a result of governments' crackdowns on the freedom of expression, which, when combined with the widespread dissemination of false information that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, has had a devastating effect. During the epidemic, governments have waged a hitherto unseen assault on people's liberties, drastically restricting their ability to express themselves freely. Targeted communication channels, censorship of social media, and the closure of media outlets have negatively influenced the public's capacity to receive essential information regarding how to cope with Covid-19. This has led to a catastrophic situation in which the public cannot acquire this information.
During a pandemic, journalists and medical experts have been confined to their homes and prevented from speaking out. As a direct consequence, individuals have not been able to get information on Covid-19, including instructions on safeguarding themselves and their communities. It is quite probable that a lack of knowledge contributed to the deaths of around five million individuals caused by the Covid-19 virus.
The Chinese government has a long tradition of restricting citizens' rights to freedom of speech. As early as December 2019, health professionals, professional journalists, and citizen journalists tried to sound the alarm during the epidemic's early days. On the other hand, they were singled out by the government as a target for reporting on the spread of a disease that was not recognized at the time. By February 2020, 5,511 inquiries into possible criminal activity had been initiated against persons who had released information about the epidemic because they had "fabricated and purposefully disseminated false and damaging information."
Concerned about the spread of the Covid-19 virus, citizen journalist Zhang Zhan traveled to Wuhan in February 2020 to file a report on the epidemic. In May of 2020, in Wuhan, she vanished without a trace. It was eventually made public that she had been taken into custody by the police, charged with "picking quarrels and instigating disturbance," and given four years in jail for her crimes. Under the pretext or in the context of the epidemic, many other nations, like Tanzania, Russia, and Nicaragua, have enacted repressive laws that limit the right to freedom of speech and silence critics.
Over the last several years, the government of Tanzania has passed a slew of laws and utilized those laws to stifle the voices of journalists, those who advocate for human rights, and members of the political opposition. When former President Magufuli was in office, the Tanzanian government adopted a position that denied the existence of Covid-19. Between March and May of 2020, the authorities used a variety of steps, including laws that ban and criminalize "fake news," to limit media coverage of the government's handling of Covid-19.
The Nicaraguan authorities originally tried to minimize the virus's effect and intimidate individuals voicing concerns. However, in October of 2020, they utilized Covid-19 to establish what they called the "Special Law on Cybercrimes." In actuality, it allows the authorities to penalize those who criticize the government’s policies and provides them with a great deal of leeway to restrict freedom of speech.
Russia's already-existing anti-"fake news" law was strengthened in April 2020, and criminal penalties were imposed for "public distribution of deliberately false material" in the situation of crisis. These precautions will continue to be in effect even after the epidemic has passed, even though the revisions have been presented as part of the authorities' reaction to Covid-19. The limits on freedom of speech connected to Covid-19 are not just time-bound emergency measures used to cope with a transient issue (“Covid-19: Global Attack on Freedom of Expression Is Having a Dangerous Impact on Public Health Crisis”). They are a part of an assault on human rights that has been going on worldwide in the last several years, and governments have found yet another pretext to further their assault on civil society due to these events.
Restricting people's ability to express themselves freely is risky and should not become the new standard. To defend the public's right to health, governments are immediately obligated to remove these limitations and ensure that information may flow freely. Both the right to freely express oneself and the right to maintain one's health are being put in jeopardy by the barrage of false information being disseminated, whether by social media companies or by those in authoritative positions who seek to sow discord and confusion for their benefit (“Covid-19: Global Attack on Freedom of Expression Is Having a Dangerous Impact on Public Health Crisis”). It is becoming more challenging for people to have an opinion that is fully informed and to make knowledgeable decisions about their health based on the most accurate scientific data currently accessible. A wide range of sources is essential, as is the capacity to question and discuss the knowledge that is already accessible.
Human Rights Watch said today that at least 83 countries across the globe had exploited the COVID-19 outbreak as a justification for breaching the rights to free expression and peaceful assembly of their citizens. The authorities have assaulted, jailed, prosecuted, and sometimes murdered opponents. In addition, they have disrupted friendly gatherings, shut down media sites, and enacted vague rules criminalizing speech harmful to public health (“Covid-19: Global Attack on Freedom of Expression Is Having a Dangerous Impact on Public Health Crisis”). Among the deaths are journalists, activists, healthcare workers, political opposition groups, and other persons and organizations criticizing the government's response to the coronavirus.
According to Human Rights Watch, governments and other state authorities should immediately end excessive restrictions on free speech to stop the spread of the Covid-19 virus and hold accountable those responsible for grave human rights violations and abuses (Covid-19 Triggers Wave of Free Speech Abuse). During its session beginning on 22 February 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council should request a report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that focuses on the states' adherence to their human rights obligations in response to Covid-19, including the influence of restrictions on freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
People are still being held in jail in certain countries, including Bangladesh, China, and Egypt, solely for criticizing the government's answers to the COVID report 19 months earlier. Among them is Zhang Zhan, a citizen journalist who is 37 years old and was given a four-year jail term in December by a court in Shanghai for "picking quarrels and creating a disturbance by going in February 2020 to Wuhan and reporting from there on the coronavirus epidemic. Zhang went on a hunger strike immediately after she was arrested in May. Since then, authorities have made her consume food against her will since her health continues to deteriorate.
At least 18 countries' armed forces or police forces have physically assaulted journalists, bloggers, and protesters. Among those who have been targeted are some individuals who have criticized the government's responses to the Covid-19 outbreak, including inadequate funding for healthcare, lockdowns, and a lack of masks and gloves for medical workers. Abuses include shooting live fire at nonviolent protestors, beating them at checkpoints, and abusing them. At the same time, they are being held in jail, all with an apparent lack of repercussions (Covid-19 Triggers Wave of Free Speech Abuse). In most instances, these troops claimed they were implementing restrictions linked to Covid-19. Similarly, security personnel in Uganda have been responsible for the deaths of demonstrators.
At least ten nations have arbitrarily prohibited or dispersed rallies opposing government reactions to Covid-19, claiming social distancing concerns on occasion. In other instances, government officials have cited Covid-19 as an excuse to disperse protests and other gatherings critical of government policies unrelated to the coronavirus. On each occasion, the restrictions were enforced while allowing prior large groups to remain.
Since January 2020, the governments of at least 24 countries have enacted vague laws and processes to criminalize the spread of alleged misinformation or other coverage of Covid-19 or other public health issues, which the authorities feel endangers the public's health. It is quite easy for governments to utilize ambiguous laws as repressive tools (“Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Snapshot of Protests and Restrictions - World”). At least five countries have enacted laws making it illegal to disseminate misleading information on various topics, including public health.
Critics of government responses to the coronavirus or other policies have been arbitrarily arrested, jailed, and prosecuted in at least 51 nations, resulting in fines and imprisonment. These authorities have used laws and regulations enacted to limit the spread of Covid-19, counterterrorism, and other pre-pandemic actions. Covid-19 was introduced as a preventative strategy against the pandemic's spread. Journalists, bloggers, other internet contributors, ...