Ryann k. England Mr. Dyer Ap Government October 9, 2016 The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedoms of speech, or of the press”. The freedoms of speech and of press are quintessential American rights, afford to it’s citizens through the ratification of the first amendment on December 15, 1791. These rights protect the voices of minority's, inform citizens, preserve the truth and create a watchdog for government corruption. Although these rights are toted in high esteem by most Americans, most are unaware these freedoms are not absolute and poses limitations. Such limitations sometimes include speech that criticizes the government. Throughout American history freedom of expression seem to be treated …show more content…
Fighting words is a form of speech that is likely to insight immediate violence and are not protected. A case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) further explained this form of speech and what words are and are not protected. In this case the defendant, Chaplinsky, was not speaking with the purpose of inciting violence and starting a fight, rather he spewed insults. The court ruled that some words are so insulting that they were more than likely to result in a fight. This case further defined fighting words by including aggravating insults which are not protected by the first …show more content…
U.S. future abolished the governments power of prior restraint. In this case the court needed to decide whether or not the New York Times could print stolen government documents know as the Pentagon Papers. These papers proved that the governments resoning for getting involved in Vietnam was different from what it had publicly portrayed the government tried to stop the publication because doing so would inhibit the war effort, decrease government trust and “irreparably harmed Americas ability to defend itself”. The court ruled in favor of the New York Times and again struck down prior