The First Amendment
Intro to the First Amendment
**We will recite the First Amendment on Monday, 5/1.
Bell Ringer:
Bell Ringer:
(In your notebooks, answer the following question) Why do people feel the need to express themselves as individuals?
List situations where you should be allowed to express yourself as an individual
List situations where you should not be allowed to express yourself as an individual
List situations where you should be allowed to express yourself as an individual
List situations where you should not be allowed to express yourself as an individual
Goal: Students will be introduced to the First Amendment
Students will be introduced to the FIRST AMENDMENT
Students will study the ethical principles of journalism
Students will recognize and discuss some major criticism of the press
Students will understands libel/ malice laws and what defenses journalists have
Students will be familiar with major court rulings regarding the scholastic press
Students will study the ethical principles of journalism
Students will recognize and discuss some major criticism of the press
Students will understands libel/ malice laws and what defenses journalists have
Students will be familiar with major court rulings regarding the scholastic press
History and the First Amendment - Information
History of the First Amendment
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.First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
A Brief History of the Bill of Rights
and the First Amendment
The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States became known as the Bill of Rights because they contained freedoms that Americans held to be their inalienable rights. So important were these rights that several states insisted on a promise of amendments guaranteeing individual rights before they would ratify the Constitution.
Our Rights
First Amendment 1
First Amendment Link:
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/lessonplans.aspx
First Principles:
First Principles
The First Amendment applies to all Americans. Our nation affirms the truth of inalienable rights for all, working for more than 200 years to make the ideals expressed in the First Amendment a reality in the lives of all Americans. These rights were so important to early citizens and their leaders, many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United States without the promise of amendments that would protect individual rights.
Here are some “First Principles” to help you to interpret these eloquent 45 words and understand how they influence our daily lives.
1. The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual.
American government is based upon the concept that all human beings are born with certain rights or freedoms. The First Amendment guards these rights by prohibiting the government from denying citizens their rights. The government does not give us our rights. Its role is to guard the rights that we already have.
We, as individuals, have freedom of conscience. Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, protects the beliefs of everyone, not just those of recognized faith communities. We are free to worship —or not to worship — as we choose. The government may not tell us what church, synagogue, mosque or temple to attend or whether, where and how we should pray.
As individuals, our ideas and beliefs are our own. We are free to develop and express our thoughts. Through our free press, we have access to a vast range of information. We may criticize our government if we see fit to do so. Judgments about ideas are for individuals to make, not for government to decree.
The First Amendment guarantees we may associate with people and join groups of our own choosing. We may ask or lobby the government to correct certain wrongs or support our beliefs.
2. Free expression is the foundation — the cornerstone — of democracy.
The First Amendment is based on the premise that people who can freely share information (especially about their government) will be informed and able to make sound choices about what leaders to elect, what forms of government they want, what laws to enact. The freedom to exchange information about the government enables people to seek alternatives to bad government.
3. The First Amendment tells the government to keep its “hands off” our religion, our ideas, our ability to express ourselves.
“Congress shall make no law …” means that as far as possible the government may not interfere with our fundamental rights. The government may not pass laws that take away our First Amendment freedoms or that force us to express ideas — including religious beliefs — that we do not embrace. But the First Amendment is not absolute.
“No law” does not mean “absolutely no law.” For instance, human sacrifice cannot be permitted in the name of freedom of conscience. The Supreme Court has affirmed that some limits must be placed on our freedoms. The government, for example, may regulate the time, place and manner, but not regulate solely on the basis of the content of our beliefs, ideas, and expressions. We may need to hold a permit before we march in support of a particular cause, but we should not have to worry about the government telling us we have no right to believe in that cause or express that idea.
4. Other people have rights, too.
The First Amendment is based upon the conviction that all human beings have inalienable rights. Our commitment to rights is inseparably linked to our civic responsibility to guard those rights for all others.
When faced with unpopular views or unrefined speech, members of the public may ask, “Why doesn't the government do something about that?” The answer? Neither government nor a majority of the public has the authority to stop an unpopular idea.
Because the First Amendment belongs to everyone — to each individual — it encourages us to respect the right of others to hold their viewpoints and religious beliefs. The First Amendment protects minority viewpoints and helps us to understand that limiting the rights of some people may eventually limit the rights of all.
5. When rights collide, government must balance them.
Sometimes the government plays a role in balancing our rights. When two rights collide, tension and controversy may result. What happens, for example, when a person's right to a fair trial conflicts with our right to learn if a fair trial is actually taking place through accounts reported in our free press? What happens when an individual’s right to personal privacy conflicts with the free flow of information? The government (through the courts) may make decisions that protect both rights to the fullest extent possible.
In addition to knowing where government officials draw the line when regulating expression, it is important to understand who may and may not control what we say or write or perform.
Public school administrators are government officials and, like city officials, have both power and limits regarding regulation of expression. Although students do not give up their First Amendment rights when they come to school, the United States Supreme Court has determined that school officials may restrict students’ rights if the administrators determine that exercising those rights would interfere with the school’s mission of educating its students. However, as government officials, they may not control or censor expression to the degree that a private organization or family might. The First Amendment does not apply to private school officials.
6. The First Amendment helps us make choices.
In the “marketplace of ideas,” we may choose which views to support and which ones to reject. When all ideas are allowed to flourish, we — as individuals — may decide what ideas and concepts to question, embrace or reject.
First Amendment advocates say it best: The antidote to distasteful or hateful speech is not censorship, but more speech.
First Amendment Link:
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/lessonplans.aspx
First Principles:
First Principles
The First Amendment applies to all Americans. Our nation affirms the truth of inalienable rights for all, working for more than 200 years to make the ideals expressed in the First Amendment a reality in the lives of all Americans. These rights were so important to early citizens and their leaders, many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United States without the promise of amendments that would protect individual rights.
Here are some “First Principles” to help you to interpret these eloquent 45 words and understand how they influence our daily lives.
1. The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual.
American government is based upon the concept that all human beings are born with certain rights or freedoms. The First Amendment guards these rights by prohibiting the government from denying citizens their rights. The government does not give us our rights. Its role is to guard the rights that we already have.
We, as individuals, have freedom of conscience. Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, protects the beliefs of everyone, not just those of recognized faith communities. We are free to worship —or not to worship — as we choose. The government may not tell us what church, synagogue, mosque or temple to attend or whether, where and how we should pray.
As individuals, our ideas and beliefs are our own. We are free to develop and express our thoughts. Through our free press, we have access to a vast range of information. We may criticize our government if we see fit to do so. Judgments about ideas are for individuals to make, not for government to decree.
The First Amendment guarantees we may associate with people and join groups of our own choosing. We may ask or lobby the government to correct certain wrongs or support our beliefs.
2. Free expression is the foundation — the cornerstone — of democracy.
The First Amendment is based on the premise that people who can freely share information (especially about their government) will be informed and able to make sound choices about what leaders to elect, what forms of government they want, what laws to enact. The freedom to exchange information about the government enables people to seek alternatives to bad government.
3. The First Amendment tells the government to keep its “hands off” our religion, our ideas, our ability to express ourselves.
“Congress shall make no law …” means that as far as possible the government may not interfere with our fundamental rights. The government may not pass laws that take away our First Amendment freedoms or that force us to express ideas — including religious beliefs — that we do not embrace. But the First Amendment is not absolute.
“No law” does not mean “absolutely no law.” For instance, human sacrifice cannot be permitted in the name of freedom of conscience. The Supreme Court has affirmed that some limits must be placed on our freedoms. The government, for example, may regulate the time, place and manner, but not regulate solely on the basis of the content of our beliefs, ideas, and expressions. We may need to hold a permit before we march in support of a particular cause, but we should not have to worry about the government telling us we have no right to believe in that cause or express that idea.
4. Other people have rights, too.
The First Amendment is based upon the conviction that all human beings have inalienable rights. Our commitment to rights is inseparably linked to our civic responsibility to guard those rights for all others.
When faced with unpopular views or unrefined speech, members of the public may ask, “Why doesn't the government do something about that?” The answer? Neither government nor a majority of the public has the authority to stop an unpopular idea.
Because the First Amendment belongs to everyone — to each individual — it encourages us to respect the right of others to hold their viewpoints and religious beliefs. The First Amendment protects minority viewpoints and helps us to understand that limiting the rights of some people may eventually limit the rights of all.
5. When rights collide, government must balance them.
Sometimes the government plays a role in balancing our rights. When two rights collide, tension and controversy may result. What happens, for example, when a person's right to a fair trial conflicts with our right to learn if a fair trial is actually taking place through accounts reported in our free press? What happens when an individual’s right to personal privacy conflicts with the free flow of information? The government (through the courts) may make decisions that protect both rights to the fullest extent possible.
In addition to knowing where government officials draw the line when regulating expression, it is important to understand who may and may not control what we say or write or perform.
Public school administrators are government officials and, like city officials, have both power and limits regarding regulation of expression. Although students do not give up their First Amendment rights when they come to school, the United States Supreme Court has determined that school officials may restrict students’ rights if the administrators determine that exercising those rights would interfere with the school’s mission of educating its students. However, as government officials, they may not control or censor expression to the degree that a private organization or family might. The First Amendment does not apply to private school officials.
6. The First Amendment helps us make choices.
In the “marketplace of ideas,” we may choose which views to support and which ones to reject. When all ideas are allowed to flourish, we — as individuals — may decide what ideas and concepts to question, embrace or reject.
First Amendment advocates say it best: The antidote to distasteful or hateful speech is not censorship, but more speech.
Court CASES
Link:
Decision Date: February 24, 1969
Background
At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students planned to wear black armbands at school as a silent protest against the Vietnam War.
When the principal became aware of the plan, he warned the students that they would be suspended if they wore the armbands to school because the protest might cause a disruption in the learning environment. Despite the warning, some students wore the armbands and were suspended.
During their suspension, the students' parents sued the school for violating their children's right to free speech. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa sided with the school’s position, ruling that wearing the armbands could disrupt learning.
The students appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit but lost and took the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Decision and Reasoning
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court’s majority ruled that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court took the position that school officials could not prohibit only on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning environment.
The dissent argued that the First Amendment does not grant the right to express any opinion at any time. Students attend school to learn, not teach. The armbands were a distraction. School officials, acting on a legitimate interest in school order, should have broad authority to maintain a productive learning environment.
Hazelwood Case
| FACTS | Students enrolled in the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East High School were responsible for writing and editing the school's paper The Spectrum. Two of the articles submitted for publication in the final edition of the paper contained stories on divorce and teenage pregnancy. The divorce article featured a story about a girl who blamed her father's actions for her parents' divorce. The teenage pregnancy article featured stories in which pregnant students at Hazelwood East shared their experiences. To ensure their privacy, the girls' names were changed in the article. The school principal felt that the subjects of these two articles were inappropriate. He concluded that journalistic fairness required that the father in the divorce article be informed of the story and be given an opportunity to comment. He also stated his concerns that simply changing the names of the girls in the teenage pregnancy article may not be sufficient to protect their anonymity and that this topic may not be suitable for the younger students. As a result, he prohibited these articles from being published in the paper. Because there was no time to edit the paper if it were to go to press before the end of the school year, entire pages were eliminated. The student journalists then brought suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech had been violated. The U.S. District Court concluded that they were not. The students appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed the ruling, stating that the students' rights had been violated. The school appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. |
| PROCEDURE | Eighth Circuit |
| ISSUES | Does the decision of a principal to prohibit the publishing of certain articles, which he deems inappropriate, in the school newspaper violate the student journalists' First Amendment right of freedom of speech? |
| REASONING | The U.S. Supreme Court held that the principal's actions did not violate the students' free speech rights. The Court noted that the paper was sponsored by the school and, as such, the school had a legitimate interest in preventing the publication of articles that it deemed inappropriate and that might appear to have the imprimatur of the school. Specifically, the Court noted that the paper was not intended as a public forum in which everyone could share views; rather, it was a limited forum for journalism students to write articles pursuant to the requirements of their Journalism II class, and subject to appropriate editing by the school. Key Points to Remember
|
1.2.11B - use and understand a variety of media and evaluate the quality of material produced
1.5.11.B- Write using well-developed content appropriate for the topic
1.5.11.C- Write with controlled and/ or subtle organization
1.9.11.A: Use media and technology resources for research, information analysis, problem solving, and decision making in content learning. Identify complexities and inconsistencies in the information and the different perspectives found in each medium.
1.9.11.B: Evaluate how the techniques used in media modify traditional society.
1.2.11B - use and understand a variety of media and evaluatethe quality of material produced
1.5.11.C- Write with controlled and/ or subtle organization
1.9.11.A: Use media and technology resources for research, information analysis, problem solving, and decision making in content learning. Identify complexities and inconsistencies in the information and the different perspectives found in each medium.
1.9.11.B: Evaluate how the techniques used in media modify traditional society.
1.2.11B - use and understand a variety of media and evaluatethe quality of material produced
