Student Question

Should there be exceptions to the First Amendment? Why or why not?

Quick answer:

Exceptions to the First Amendment should exist when exercising these rights infringes on others' rights. For instance, free speech doesn't cover falsely shouting "fire" in a theater, and religious freedom doesn't allow promoting faith in public schools. Similarly, the press can't libel individuals, and assemblies must not endanger public safety. Supreme Court rulings often reflect this balance, ensuring First Amendment rights don't harm others.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

The First Amendment contains clauses protecting speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion (free exercise and establishment). But regardless of which right you are asking about, I would argue that the First Amendment protections should be fairly broad, and that a right can only really be limited when its exercise infringes on the rights of others. For example, as the Supreme Court famously ruled, while one has the right to free speech, this protection does not allow one to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. One has the right to exercise one's religious faith as they see fit, but not to use a public, taxpayer-supported forum (like the public schools) to promote their faith to others. The right to a free press does not give journalists the right to libel a politician. Assemblies can be held publicly as long as they do not endanger the safety of other citizens. So...

Unlock
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

any exceptions to the First Amendment should ensure that the exercise of the rights protected within it does not injure or traduce the rights of other people. Of course, there are often very fine lines to be drawn when considering First Amendment issues, but this is usually the stance taken by the Supreme Court in interpreting it.

Approved by eNotes Editorial