Freedom of Expression As Curtailed In the First Amendment - Research Paper Example

Freedom of Expression & Sedition Introduction Freedom of Expression as curtailed in the First Amendment. Before commencing this study, it is significant to establish the source from which the concept of Sedition is originated. In the US for instance, the Constitution as evidenced in the first Amendment provides for freedom of religion and expression. Similar constitutes on free speech, press, and to petition assembly and address for grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief (Levy, 2005). The Supreme Court’ s interpretation of the degree of protection accorded by these rights also applies to the federal government in its entirety. Moreover, the Court has on a number of occasions applied an interpretation technique to the due process as curtailed in the Fourteenth Amendment as a clause meant to protect individuals from interference by state governments (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). fundamental components of liberty of expression include right of autonomy to speech and press independence. Freedom of expression permits people to communicate without any form of intrusion from the authority (supra, see note 1). The Supreme Court has prominence on matters involving the government and interference to press freedom and freedom of association. Content-neutral legislation applies such strict mechanisms (Ibid). The Supreme Court further documented the fact that a federal or central government posses power. This prevents speech that might facilitate breach of peace or promote aggression. The concept of sedation originated as a provision for rights to freedom and expression as provided in the country’s constitution. Sedition Sedation is defined as issuing statements that are likely to incite the public against the government. Sedition is a common law offence that is usually expressed through acts of intention aimed at Generating hatred between the public and the government Cause an unlawful issuance or publication of materials that dishonors the government Considering the points stated above, sedation could be described as unlawful language that may jeopardize state’s security. A statement or an action is considered an act of sedation if it threatens state’s security or incites hatred among the people. This description raises serious issues on the role of press freedom and the ability of sustaining a free press. Certainly, press freedom and freedom of expression cannot thrive in the midst of sedation. Brief Historical Origin of the Concept The concept of sedation was developed in 1798 and 1801, following the threats of French invasion. Prior to the developments, nearly twenty-six individuals had been charged in the federal court for publishing or collaborating in the printing of counterfeit news. In addition, people would be charged in a court of law for speaking in public with the intention of undermining the regime (Durey, 2009). Media house owners and other prominent personalities were detained and charged with treason and unlawful conduct. For example, publishing an article on John Adams the US led to the arrest of the journalist behind the story. In this case, political opponents of government were the main defendants. The prosecution and judicial preceding raised heated debate on the role of a free press within a democratic country. The first federal trial connected to the case led to a widespread public uproar that threatened the credibility of the judicial service. This promoted discussions on political impudence and the role of judges on press freedom matters. The case further raised concern on the relationship between the state and the judiciary. Arguably, the judiciary is supposed to be an independent state authority that is free from the influence of the government (Levy, 2005). The Act which was passed in July 1798 but which until now has been subjected to numerous amendments, has provision for the punishment of people and journalists who make false declarations with the intentionally of defaming the federal government. A number of people have casted doubts as to whether the courts had unfettered power over common-law crimes, hence passage of the Sedition Act, which provided the constitutional right for federal prosecutions on seditious slander. Initial drafts maintained severe penalties even on common criticisms against the government. Nevertheless, the Act included current liberalizations the US and English legal practice, which include allowing truth as a justification to allow the bench decide whether appropriate law was applied to the case (Levy, 2005). The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 following an approval by the senate. The amendment provided legal protection to newly liberated slave population and it became a concern to the government. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”(Bloom, Johnson, 2001, p. 184). The above stated theory is acknowledged to have occasioned the realization of the approach that caused nationalization of the First Amendment. Near V. Minnesota (1931). This significant case occasioned striking down of state laws by a court for allowing prior restraint as illegal. Within its verdict, the Court relied on the First Amendment provisions on free press and actions of state governments vide the Doctrine of Incorporation. After its ratification, the First Amendment is recognized for protecting citizens from federal government restriction. State governments’ directive of the press progressed continued to 1931 when the Supreme Court started to apply the Fourteenth Amendment’s doctrine. The First Amendment protects of press freedom and freedom of expression. Laws in Minnesota allowed officials to approve newspaper articles before they went on for publishing. In a report compiled by the newspaper monitoring officials it was stated that all published news or articles had to show good motives and justification. The official further stated that failure to compliance with the above requirements could lead to censorship. In relation to the aforementioned, publishing lewd obscene, lascivious,” or “malicious material was considered a crime. Jay Near, a journalist working for the paper published an article that was considered scandalous. The paper was characterized by sensational news, which exposed corruption cases in the government. The article also claimed that the Jewish community had taken over leadership of the city. The article also accused senior government official including governors and police chiefs of taking bribes. The news article was suspended on the allegation of violating Minnesota laws. The court’s argument insisted that restraint on publishing the news could be counted as censorship. This is because the case failed to comply with the provisions of the first amendment. Consequently, the court had no legal mandate to prevent the publication of a new material prior to investigation. This case provided a significant progress in the United States’ sedation laws. New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964) In this case, the court maintained that provisions in the first amendment protected media houses even on faulty publication. The court ruled that the provisions were only applicable on the ground that the publishing was carried out on definite cruelty. In this case, civil right leaders published a full-page article to raise funds in support of prominent civil right leaders such as martin Luther king junior. The article contained information that raised hatred against the police force accusing it of brutality and incompetence. The court established that some of the charges that were brought against New York Times were indeed exaggerated. Among the complainants was one L.B. Sullivan who took a legal action against the New York Times for libel. The advert did not mention Sullivan’s name, nevertheless, Sullivan claimed that the advertisement implied his responsibility for the actions of the police. He argued that the advertisement damaged his reputation in the community. A ruling was made in his favor and the defendant was ordered to pay a total sum of $500,000 constituting both special and general damages. The defendant appealed arguing that it did not intend to cause harm to the plaintiff. He further argued that if a Newspaper had to check the precision of every criticism of every official, a free press would be severely limited and unguaranteed. The court ruled in favor of the New York Times press. Consequently, the court maintained that libel could only be proved if the petitioner proved beyond reasonable doubt that indeed the issue counted as malice. That is the newspaper agreed to publish the article with prior knowledge of prejudice and recklessness. Conclusion The law on Sedition has undergone tremendous development after the court’s decision on the above stated court. There are a number of cases, which have now been changed the precedent set in the above decisions, the same are not very consequential to the law on sedition and freedom of expression as curtailed in the American Constitution. References Bloom, S., Johnson, L. R (2001). The Story of the Constitution. London: Christian Liberty Press, 2001 Durey, M. (2009). With the Hammer of Truth”: James Thomas Callender and America’s Early National Heroes. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Levy, L. W. (2005). Emergence of a Free Press. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More