The Bill of Rights that has been protected by the first amendment as a part of the U.S Bill of Rights is the liberty of speech and expression. Too good to be true as stated in Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, which presented the Bill before the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, depicted that every individual including the press in the U.S will be treated as if they have complete freedom of expressing their written or verbal opinion (U.S. Constitution)
The main objective behind proposing the Bill of Rights according to Supreme Court of Justice Robert Jackson was to release the Bill of Rights from the hands of various political controversies so that they could be placed at some safer place not easily in the reach of majorities and officials (ALA, First Amendment of the Bill of Rights) That clearly indicates the establishment that wanted Bill of Rights to be beneficial in the favor of courts and legal proceedings, in this way to be applicable only by the courts. This has also been revealed when the Bill of Rights was expected to support freedom of expression in such a way that it would not affect fundamental rights to vote in elections (ALA, First Amendment of the Bill of Rights)
Unfortunately, there has not been a single record that tells us about such a ‘freedom of press’ debate that Madison proposed before the Constitution. However, the first amendment well emphasized the nature of a Free State in which every individual possessed the right to freedom in context with legal expression. Though it provided too much freedom on one hand where every individual acquired the right to express openly before the audience without any legal obstacle as mentioned in the Constitution, on the other hand, the ‘freedom of expression’ tosh created unseen and unpredictable limitations of the consequences that are expected aftermath the ‘expression’.
If latter considered appropriate, the consequences would end up in punishment according to the law which whenever proved any dangerous or offensive writings or publications will follow a fair and impartial trial in the custody of a pernicious tendency. According to the Bill of Rights, such legal boundaries are necessary for the preservation of maintaining peace and order, which would not only make the government think before conducting any speech on a whatsoever sensitive issue, it would also cover up all the receptiveness in context with religion and civil liberty. Therefore this only elucidates the free will of individuals and nothing more than that to be covered or be beneficial from the Bill of Rights.
In case of too much freedom, the individual must be ready to be an objective of the legal punishment according to the law and order while in case of tight confinements, the ‘freedom of expression is abducted. Therefore both when juxtaposed depicts the picture of the actual ‘Bill of Rights’ policy which in order to maintain its self-esteem has proposed such ‘freedom’.
Though the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been a history that enabled those attempts that were later withdrawn from what had been promised. The Bill of Rights was more than a series of direct attacks on freedom of speech and expression in the American political discourse and supported those who have wanted to limit speech instead of broadening the freedom authority. Congress along with the Fourteenth Amendment restricted ‘such’ freedom to be practiced in public places, workplaces, and other establishments (U.S. Constitution Online).
The Fourteenth Amendment applicable limitation which has been litigated in the Court proceedings upholds no obvious reason for marking and banning the analysis in the context of the cautious requirement of the quality and durability of the Government’s relationship with its particular actions (U.S. Constitution).
Those who dislike the Free speech doctrine for its biased nature must not forget that the issue which has been capturing the curses of the public and criticisms as appears in the First Amendment does not come with an obvious historical pedigree. Despite making so many attempts to legalize the freedom theory in the light of religious and philosophical tolerations, the dualisms of mind and action coupled with the doctrine of mental privacy are to both toleration and freedom of speech theories.
Freedom of expression, slaying somewhere in between the restrictions and liberty is today an unending debate damaging reputations, undermining the state, challenging religious truths, and demeaning the members of so-called political and reputable groups. Up till now despite the fact that U.S. Supreme Court clearance of the First Amendment, many times the issue is blamed to threat commercial activity thereby inciting trouble. There is no concern over the debate of the Bill of Rights to provide too much or too little freedom when most of the political parties have declared ‘speech freedom’ as a form of action capable of generating criminal acts.
U.S. Constitution. Web.
U.S. Constitution Online. Web.
ALA, First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Web.