Originally the first amendment only apply the relevant laws to America enacted by Congress, but by1925Years of "Jiteluo v. New York ("Gitlow v. New YorkUSA), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution, based on the America in the "due process clause", the scope of the first amendment at all levels of government to expand to every state.

 

[text] content

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

Translation: the Congress shall make no law about the following matters: establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech freedom of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[background]

Against the "constitution" American a reason congressional approval is American "constitution" does not provide sufficient guarantees of civil liberties. In order to provide such protection, with the "submit bill of rights", "the first amendment" to 1789Years9Month25DaySubmitted to the States for approval, and in1791Years12Month15DayGet through.

 

Establishment of Religion []

The article prohibits the federal government, state government or City Hall establish an official religion, or preferences with respect to other religious preference, a religion, or religious preferences with respect to the non religious, or relative to non religious preference, religion.

Originally, the first amendment applies only to the federal government, so when the first amendment was adopted, some states have established a number of official church, and some continued to19In the early 20th century.

Then, through1947Years of "Iverson v. Board of Education ("Everson v. Board of Education), the state government has also been incorporated into the scope of the provisions limit. However, until the20Century mid and late stage, the judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court on American "establish clause" and "the free exercise clause", it was banned in the state of religious official promotion activities. In the1994Years of "Zias Joel village school district board of education v. Georgia case (the"Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet), justice David Sutter on behalf of the majority opinion written verdict, said: "the government cannot be compared to a religion like another religion, or with respect to atheism and more like religion."[1]

The "Anglican Establishment Clause" has become the focus of debate between different groups America, interpretation of the terms in different periods in the history of USA have different versions.[2] According to the libertarian argument, "Anglican Establishment Clause" to build a wall of separation between government and religion,[3] Although this view is not directly reflected in the first amendment, but President Jefferson appears in a private letter to religious leaders.[2]

According to some conservatives say, "Anglican Establishment Clause" is against the government to establish a country to teach, not against the government admits the existence of "God".[4] [5] According to the report, Pugh Research Center pointed out, most Americans agree with the latter point of view, even67%Americans in American presumption is a "Christian nation".[6] [7]

 

[belief]

In the1963Years of "Xie Potter v. Verner case ("Sherbert v. VernerIn USA), the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the state if there is no "good reason", will not refuse any religious activities. The case involved Seport is a seventh Day Adventists, her faith asked her not to work on Saturday, and her government of South Carolina so that she does not accord with the benefits of standard.[8] In the1972"Wisconsin v. Yoder ("Wisconsin v. YoderIn the case of), the Supreme Court ruled that "undue burden" is not convincing to religious activities, even if this behavior seems to be neutral, but in fact it is unconstitutional.

From the1990"Employment Oregon Department of human resources (v. Smith"Employment Division v. Smith), definition of "good reason" is becoming more and more narrow. In general, only certain laws and regulations is not for a particular religion, then it does not violate the "freedom of religion clause".[9] In the1993"The road looking for Babaru Arye church v. Hialeah case ("Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah), the Supreme Court ruled that the Hialeah a ban on religious sacrifice the constitutionality of the law. This law has been blamed for Sant Rya to teach, because of the Jewish slaughter (Kosher slaughterIt is a legal exceptions). According to the "universal" (Generally applicable) principle, because this bill fails to pass "good reason" test, so the law was ruled unconstitutional.

1993Years, America Congress enacted the "religious freedom Restoration Act" (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), to restore "good reason" standard. In the1997V. Flores case Boer city year "("City of Boerne v. Flores), the Supreme Court overturned the bill, the reason is the act forced state and local governments to provide over protection of religion, in violation of the provisions of the first amendment. USA regime system, only the Supreme Court can release law authority, Congress has no right to act and to release it states. And in the2006Years of "Gonzalez CaUDV"(sect caseGonzales v. UDV), the federal government still has the right to develop in line with "religious freedom Restoration Act" in "good reason" standard law.

 

[freedom]

In response to criticisms of the government

The Supreme Court in20The never before according to the free speech clause of the first amendment on the constitutionality of any federal law made a decision. The Supreme Court has never had a clause in speech1801Years old1789Year "alien and Sedition law" made a decision.[10]As the main critics of the law, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the law violated the Tenth Amendment, including the first, the constitution.[11]Hindsight, the Supreme Court of1964"New York Times v. Sullivan ("New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) verdict also admitted, "although" alien and Sedition Acts "never in our hospital to accept the verdict, criticism of its legitimacy in the history of the court in straight".[12]

"1917Anti espionage law "(Espionage Act of 1917The provisions of American), in the army or navy caused or trying to cause "disobedience, infidelity, mutiny or refuses to perform the duties" for a maximum of twenty years in prison. More than two thousand people have been convicted under the act. A film producer for denouncing the America allies Britain goodwill in a work and was sentenced to ten years in prison.[13]"1918Anti Sedition Act ("Sedition Act of 1918) will further against the government's "infidelity", "vulgar" or "abuse" language as a crime.

During the first World War, the Socialist Party General Secretary Charles Hek (USACharles SchenckAfter the discovery of a socialist party) executive committee meeting minutes in time for the party's headquarters in the search was convicted of violating the Espionage Act "". Minutes of the meeting include a date for1917Years8Month13DayThe resolution, content is printed15000Leaflets have been allowed to join the army sent to people.[14] Leaflets secretly convey intense opposition to conscription, the conscripts to criminals, and urged the potential candidates "do not yield to threats".[15]Chen Ke on their appeal as a guilty verdict1919Year "Schenck v. United States ("Schenck v. United StatesServed on the Supreme Court). Chen Ke argues, "the Espionage Act" violated the free speech clause of the first amendment. The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal Chen g, maintain the original sentence guilty. Small justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained in opinion, "a question in every case is whether the words, in clear and present danger caused by the condition was used as its essence, substantive evils that Congress has the power to stop".[16]

Chen g in the case of "clear and present danger" test at1919"Debs v. USA case ("Debs v. United States) is described in detail.1918Years6Month16DayThe political movement, EugeneVDebus is in Ohio in Canton, published a theme of "socialism, its growth and the ultimate victory of the prophecy".[17]Debs in his speech, "its most faithful comradeWagenknecht,BakerAndRuthenbergFor aiding and abetting others refused to accept military service registration was convicted and devotion to the working class "accept the punishment of the proud.[18]In addition, several hours before the speech, Debs has announced that the identity of a1917Years4Month in Saint Louis by preaching the "anti war declaration and programme to demonstrations, petitions and groups all do everything in one's power mode of sustained, positive, publicly opposed the war" "".[19]In a speech, "Debs is charged with violating the Espionage Act" and convicted. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, that although Debs's remarks were not caused by "clear and present danger", but at that time, and his comments with "natural tendency to hinder conscription affairs and the possible effects of".[19]

Benjamin GitlowAfter being ruled in the "left" advocate "declaration by force, violence and illegal means to subvert and overthrow the government organized the necessity and legitimacy" and circulation that similar ideas of extreme newspaper "revolution" after being convicted of anarchism convicted.[20]In the Supreme Court debate,GitlowThat possibility "specific situation or the understanding and use of court trial legislation and produce illegal consequences and punish not provocative speech simple expression".[21]Despite its acknowledged that "freedom of expression 'no'",GitlowInsisting "(freedom of expression) 'can only be a causal relationship exists between, and has caused a seed in its travel attempted or possible substantive evil' is limited".[21]The law does not consider the illegal text in the circumstances under which violates the first amendment to the constitution was written. The Supreme Court rejectedGitlowArguments.Edward SanfordThe judge wrote the majority opinion statement, "risk inciting the substantive crime by illegal means to overthrow the government organized the remarks is enough to make the punishment fall within the legislature account...... These comments from essentially relates to danger and harm public order and national security".[22]1925Years"GitlowV. New York" (Gitlow v. New York) has greatly extendedSchenckCase and Debs case, but the Supreme Court's first amendment by the Fourteenth Amendment of jurisdiction and general advice and each state.[23]

1940Year, Congress passed the "Smith method", will promote the "legitimacy" to overthrow or destroy American any domestic government by force and violence as illegal.[24]The law becomes a tool for law enforcement agencies to combat the Communist leader.Eugene DennisAccording to the "Smith law" in Article2Chapter for trying to set up in America domestic Communist Party was found guilty after for judicial review and obtain the Supreme Court nose.[25]In the1951Years"DennisV. American case ", the Supreme Court in6Ratio2Votes (Tom C. ClarkThe judge because during the American justice minister commands to start proceedings and avoid) maintain the constitutionality of the law. FredMChief judge Vincent Learned Hand clearly according to the modified Oliver Wendell Holmes's "clear and present danger" test verdict: "in each case the court must consider 'serious sin', after deducting its impossibility, whether made to avoid danger and in when necessary, violated the free speech right."[26]Obviously, Vincent said, "clear and present danger" test does not imply "government must wait for the impending before taking action plan has been formulated, and standby".[27]

DennisThe decision by the Supreme Court explicitly overturned never too, but its importance in the first amendment law system have been due to multiple subsequent judgment was impaired.DennisCase six years later, the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of "Smith law". In the1957Years"YatesAmerican case "(v.Yates v. United States), the Supreme Court ruled that the law is aimed at "preaching to behavior, rather than thought".[28]Preach Abstract doctrine are still protected, but clear incitement to overthrow the government of speech can be powerful punishment according to the "Smith method".

During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court of public attitudes towards government criticism to change. Although the Supreme Court at1968"American v.O'BrienCase ("United States v. O'BrienBecause of worries about the burned draft cards) may disturb the conscription system "smoothly, effectively" maintain a forgery, damage or destroy draft card law,[29][30]The following year, the Supreme Court of1969Years"BrandenburgV. Ohio ("Brandenburg v. OhioThe award is made explicit analytical), veto1927Years"WhitneyV. California ("Whitney v. California) ruling (in which a woman was jailed for help American Communist Party).[31]At present, the definition of the Supreme Court are given rights to talk openly about violence and revolution of the broad:

(our) decision created a principle, that is freedom of speech and of the press and the constitutional guarantee does not permit a state to prohibit or rejection that force or violations of speech, speech is to incite or unless manufacturing illegal urgent and is likely to incite or cause the kind of behavior.[32]

BrandenburgCase abandoned by theSchenckThe introduction of "clear and present danger" test and further weaken theDennisInfluence of the case.[33]To1971Years, the Losangeles county court in a corridor"Fuck the DraftThe word "coat is not be punished behavior.[34]

 

About political speech problem

Anonymous speech

1960Through the years, "Talley v. California ("Talley v. California), the Supreme Court ruled that Losangeles city removed a aims to identify the anonymous leaflet behavior as the crime ordinance.1995Years, the Supreme Court in "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission ("McIntyre v. Ohio Elections CommissionOnce again ruled that Ohio) that anonymous distribute campaign leaflets for illegal and unconstitutional.

But in the1987Years of "Meese v. Kean ("Meese v. Keene), the Supreme Court upheld the1938Years of "foreign agents registration law" (Foreign Agents Registration Act), that several Canadian film is "political propaganda" objective, so must be marked in the picture.

Campaign funds

In the1976Years of "Barkley v. Valeo case ("Buckley v. Valeo), the Supreme Court ruled1971The federal election campaign act set "("Federal Election Campaign Act) constitutionality part of the terms and the related law, while the other part of the terms have been ruled unconstitutional. These laws restrict the candidate will political donations for the campaign advertising or other expenses. The court thinks, only based on preventing corruption or corruption, related terms is constitutional. Decision also stipulates that Congress should not set too low on the campaign contributions and spending limits, otherwise is equivalent to restricting freedom of speech. The ruling essentially overturned the election spending most of the federal election campaign act restrictions. However, decisions regarding public election donations from maintenance and fundraising restriction clause.[35]

For the further regulation of campaign funds from2003Years of "Mcconaughey v. Federal Election Commission (case"McConnell v. Federal Election Commission). The decision on2002Years to develop a "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) introduced a number of new restrictions on campaign finance terms. The decision to maintain the plaintiff's appeal, banned political parties to improve the "soft money" charge amount, or by some private institutions will be "soft money" for the production and dissemination of campaign advertising. However, the Supreme Court overturned the previous relevant provisions of "Pro choice", ruled that the Federal Election Commission has the right or the coordination of all campaign spending, or allowing all candidates independent campaign spending, but can not be a combination of the two methods, and agrees that the party can do no upper limit on campaign spending in "undertake the risks under the premise of".[36] While the Supreme Court through "Tinker v. Mei de for independent community school district case ("Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District) ruled against underage donation campaign funds is unconstitutional.

In the2007Years of "Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin right to life company case ("Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc), the Supreme Court ruled2002Years of law to apply.

And in the2008Years of "Davies v. Federal Election Commission (case"Davis v. Federal Election Commission), the Supreme Court ruled that "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" on "millionaires amendment" provisions are unconstitutional. The court thinks, "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" to self financing candidate too loose, and for those who spend at least350To limit Wan Meijin more candidates practice is in violation of the freedom of speech.

In the2010Years of "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (case"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government use "campaign behavior Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" control of the enterprise in violation of the first amendment. At the same time, the court also rejected in1990By "Austen v. Michigan chamber of commerce case ("Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce) A legal precedent and the birth, the method that prohibit those use treasury bonds to support the enterprise did not violate the first amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment: supporting and opposing opinion on candidates. At the same time, the Supreme Court has rejected the "Mcconnell clause Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" in the "".[37]

The national flag defaced

To deface the flag as a protest against the way is a cause for many different problems. The Supreme Court cases in fouling flag1969"Sicuite v. New York ("Street v. New York). Hear a wrong about the civil rights movement leader James Meredith After the murder of reports, Sidney Street burned down the side48Star flag. In accepting the police questioning, Street replied: "yes, that's my flag, is I burned it. If Meredith can happen, we don't need to have USA flag."[38] Street was arrested and charged with violating a New York will "in speech or behavior to damage, graffiti, fouling, contempt, trample or contempt (any American flag)" for offences.[39] Street filed an appeal to the Supreme Court was guilty, arguing that the law "are both in the broad provisions or implementation of" language ", ready to accept either course" and not "clearly defined the prohibited act", and the punished his claim that "constitute the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution to protect freedom of speech" behavior.[40] The Supreme Court according to the "Strong M Berg v. California ("Stromberg v. California) to5Ratio4New York will vote decision against the flag of "speech" in crime law unconstitutional, Sicuite trial failed to demonstrate a guilty verdict basis has not yet ruled unconstitutional provisions, so the guilty verdict unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court "to reject constitutional issues, the case involves to the broad Award", which is also not clear whether the constitutional flag burning behavior.[41]

About flag burning legislation ready to accept either course in1989"The Texas v. Johnson" (Texas v. JohnsonTo eliminate). In this case, George Lee Johnson in Dallas1984Years of the Republican National Convention held in during a protest. Meanwhile, Johnson in the side USA flag spilled kerosene is ignited, and shouted anti American. Johnson was arrested and charged with violating Dezhou instant ban vandalizing respected material laws, subsequently convicted, sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of2000The dollar.1989Years, Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Dezhou law unconstitutional based on content of freedom of symbolic speech restrictions. The Supreme Court in5Ratio4The votes to overthrow the guilty verdict Johnson. The fundamental principle of William Brennan judge asserts that "the first amendment of the constitution is not only because of government social thought an idea repulsive or not soon banned the expression of that idea".[42] Many members of Congress criticized the decision of the Supreme Court, the house of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Supreme court.[43] Subsequently, Congress passed a federal law banning flag burning, but the Supreme Court in1990"USA v. Ekman ("United States v. EichmanWill the decision as invalid). Since then, Congress attempts to be prohibited defaced flag amendment.1995Years, "the national flag defaced amendment" has been successful in the house get enough votes through, failed to win Senate approval.2000Years, the Senate by63Yes37The votes in favour of the amendment, but the distance between the three required a two-thirds majority is poor4Ticket.2006Years, the amendment to1Votes again failed to get through.

Free speech zone

2004The establishment of years to the Democratic National Convention free speech zone. Free speech zone refers to the public places reserved for political activists to exercise its right of free speech area, in fact, be called by this regionTPM(timeTimeThe placePlaceThe wayMannerThe control method of speech). Free speech zone by the secret service (Secret ServiceSet up near the president) in March or speech area. In the process of presidential travel or speech, the police will pay close attention to the public display of the speech marks people, and escorted to free speech zone. Denied access to free speech zone protesters will be arrested, and possibly at a particular time with "illegal invasion", "misconduct" or "resisting arrest" and other charges.

2003Years, not a common federal law was discussed, the law that "in the knowledge that the president or other people from the secret service protection in the vicinity of the building or the empty place, and after the authorities to post the announcement, sealed off the scene or other means to tell, is still trying to enter the area or temporarily to visit the area" are regarded as illegal behavior."[44][45]

Commercial speech

Commercial speech refers to companies or individuals for the purpose of profit and comments. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court ruled that the commercial speech is not entirely under the "protection of the first amendment". In order to distinguish between "commercial speech" and other words in the proceedings, the Supreme Court ruled that the four features of the "commercial speech":[46]

The content of how to buy;

The contents may be characterized as advertising content;

References a particular commodity;

Communicator is issued the content for commercial purposes

Individually, these comments are not fully recognized by the "commercial speech", but if the communicator of speech in full compliance with the above four points, then can be considered to be "commercial speech".[47]

Campus speech

In the1969"Tinker v. Des Moines private community school district (case"Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District) in the right to freedom of speech, the Supreme Court will extend to the students. In this case, some students because of wearing a black armband protested the Vietnam War and by the school punishment. The Supreme Court finally ruled that the school can not limit the students did not result in normal school activity interruption of symbolic speech. Abbe, Fu, the judge wrote:

"Schools should not become totalitarian territory. School officials and no absolute power to students. Student. Have the basic right to the state must respect, as they must also respect their duty to the state." 

However, in the1969Years later, the Supreme Court and the interpretation of a series of restrictions. In the "Bethel school district v. Fraser ("Bethel School District v. FraserIn court), students in the school because of rally published suggestive and obscene remarks by school punishment. In "hazel Wood v. Kell (Maier case"Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier), the court held that school examination system and did not interfere with the school newspaper enjoy First Amendment rights of students. Recently, in the2007Years of "Moresca Frederick case" (Morse v. Frederick), the court ruling school in students that "illegal drug use" situation can limit the students in the activities organized by the school of speech, even if not all the school site range, and does not violate the first amendment to the constitution.

Obscene content

Slander and private litigation

Slander

Private litigation

Non voluntary management issues related to drugs

Effect of the first amendment for the non voluntary management problem of psychotropic drugs in20In the late 19th century. In the1979"Rodgers v. Okin case ("Rogers v. Okin), the District Court of Massachusetts (Joseph Luis TauroJoseph Louis TauroThe judge said the):

"People have a right to think about one thing, or refuse to think something about fertility and abortion rights, such rights as Roe v. Wade as important as. The First Amendment protection is the people's thinking and communication rights. A prerequisite for people to exchange rights protection is to protect the people are free thinking right. As a practical matter, free thinking is fundamental to our cherished the communication right, and it also protected by the constitution.[48]"

He continued to ask "in the constitution of the powers of the government, the ideological control involuntary was not one of them".[48]

After two years,1981Years of "Rennie v. Klein ("Rennie v. KleinIn America), third circuit court avoided the first amendment and the eighth amendment based on the argument of the plaintiff, that "the best choice is produced by 'Ingraham v. White' personal safety considerations". "Ingraham v. White ("Ingraham v. Wright) is one of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution based on case analysis, the effect of non voluntary control of psychotropic drugs.[49]

The publication of the Memoirs of the criminals

In some states in American, there is the approved similar "son of Sam" (billSon of Sam LawThe law prohibited), for profit publishing the criminal's memoirs. The bill seeks to prohibit the serial killer David Berkowitz (New York stateDavid BerkowitzDescribe the details of a murder) published a memoir. And in the1991"Simon and Schuster v. crime victims board case ("Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board), the Supreme Court is in violation of the First Amendment grounds, cancel the bill. The criminals have the right decision rules published his memoirs, but publishing interest income must be handed over to the New York state crime victims board managed for a period of time, all expenses of New York state crime victims board has the right reason managed funds interest to pay compensation to victims of criminal cases in the litigation and medical. Similar laws in other states have the same question.

[] the freedom of the press

In the1938Years of "Lovell v. Griffin case" (Lovell v. City of Griffin), chief judge Hughes will "publishing" is defined as "give the people to accept or disseminate information and perspectives of tools".[50] The freedom of the press is as free speech, is subject to libel restricted.

And in the1972Years of "Berg v. Hayes Boulez ("Branzburg v. Hayes), the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment does not give reporters refused to grand jury subpoena authority. But the ruling in the case is whether journalists have the right based on their beliefs under the premise, "in the state or federal grand jury testimony", not "delete the freedom of speech and the press of the first amendment".[51] Finally, by five votes to four votes against the results of that journalists do not have this privilege.

Publishing tax

USA states were retained on the news publishing industry tax power, as they have the right to other goods. However, if the tax is specialized in publishing industry is regarded as unconstitutional. In the1936Year "Grosjean v. America Publishing Company Limited (" caseGrosjean v. American Press CoThe Supreme Court decision), newspaper advertising revenue tax, tax is invalid. Similarly, some press preferential treatment of tax has been canceled. For example, in the1987Years of "Arkansas writers' project v. ragland ("Arkansas Writers'Project v. RaglandIn order to), Arkansas "religious, professional, trade and press" tax deduction is a violation of the Supreme Court, because the preferential policies have a content control behavior.

In the1991Years of "leathers v. Medlock ("Leathers v. Medlock), the Supreme Court state information for different industries have different tax policies, such as tax on cable TV, but not the newspaper tax. The Supreme Court held that "according to the speaker, and even journalists the distinction between taxation does not involve American first amendment; unless the tax is aimed at them, or to suppress the risk, especially the trend."[52]

Content review

The court little compassion for processing content based news control. In the1974Year "," Miami Herald Tribune "Publishing Co. v. Tuoniou case ("Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo), Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Miami requires all newspapers must allow political candidates in the same position in response to political commentary law unconstitutional. The state of Miami that the responsibility of the law to regulate the news media, but the Supreme Court held that the first amendment stipulates the freedom of the press, there is no requirement to bear the responsibility of media. The Supreme Court ruled that the newspaper has the right to refuse to publish their own do not want to publish articles.[53]

While the news content regulation cases about wireless TV and radio have appealed to the Supreme Court many times, but the Supreme Court ruled that the radio frequency is limited, then the government has the right to require the wireless television and radio must apply for a license. While the Supreme Court also ruled, this problem is not the first amendment of the constitution. The supreme court allowed in news neutral on the issue, the government can control broadcasting company.[53]

In the1978Years of "Federal Communications Commission v. Pacific Foundation ("Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation), the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Communications Commission ruling, it has the right to restrict "indecent" content broadcast on the radio.

 

Assembly and petition [free]

The right to petition from1689Version of the "British bill of rights". Since the1688Years of "seven bishops ("Seven Bishops), "the English bill of rights" provisions "when national petitions to the king when, all according to the petition behavior of arrest and prosecution is illegal".[54]

The right to petition was targeted to the government, but was later extended to three departments America power divided: Congress, government and judicial organs.[55] Through the interpretation American Federal Supreme Court, "vengeance" (Redress of grievances) gained wider definition: it is not the traditional sense of citizens to government report grievances, also reported the personal interests of higher.[56] However, in the past, the Congress has a direct restrictions on the right to petition. In eighteenth Century for example90In USA, Congress passed the "alien and Sedition law ("Alien and Sedition Acts), to punish the Federal Party opponent, but the Supreme Court has never made any decision.1835Years passed by the house of Representatives, American speech "restrictions" (Gag Rule), announced that it would no longer accept any petition against slavery. And in the1844Years, the Supreme Court did not hold any hearing of the case, the abolition of the law. During the first World War, a petition for the abolition of espionage punished, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on an.

The right to assembly, originally is different from the right to petition. In the1875Years of "American federal v. Cruickshank ("United States v. Cruikshank), the Supreme Court held that "the right of the people of peaceful assembly whose purpose is to the Congress or the government departments petition and complaint the rough, it is a basic civil right, should be protected and guaranteed the American".[57] Justice Morrison Waite said the right of assembly is the right to petition of right, but in the later case, this distinction is not be concerned about.

 

[Association]

Freedom of association is not directly write the first amendment, but in1958"The national NAACP v. Alabama," (NAACP v. Alabama), the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of association is one of the basic rights of citizens, protected by the first amendment.

And in the1984"Roberts v. America junior chamber ("Roberts v. United States JayceesIn the case of), the Supreme Court ruled that a community not to accord with the aim of refused to others to join. However, in the1995Years of "Hurley v. Boston Irish American gay Association ("Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston), the Supreme Court rules, if someone could lead to the community cannot continue an appeal advocacy community, then the club has the right to refuse the people to join.

Similarly, in the2000Years of "American Scout Association v. Dell case ("Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) ruling, court held that the laws of the state of New Jersey has the right to terminate a disclose their sexual orientation of scout leader authority.[58]

 

[] international significance

"Part of the terms American bill of rights" is the source of "the English bill of rights" and some other British laws. But the English bill of rights "protection" than "the contents of the bill of rights" protection USA content in so much. For example, American "bill of rights" in the "first amendment" to protect all citizens the right to free speech, but "the English bill of rights" protection "parliamentary debates and court litigation right of free speech".[59] Submitted for consideration "a few weeks ago America bill of rights" is in USA Congress, revolution, France issued a "Declaration of human rights", some provisions of the declaration and the "meaning of the first amendment" similar. For example, "Declaration of human rights" that "every citizen has the freedom of speech, write and publish freely".[60]

Compared to other similar law, "the first amendment" is not in the text of any restrictions on the "freedom of speech". For example, in "the European Convention on human rights", clearly put forward "to national security, territorial integrity or public security interests, in order to prevent confusion or crime, protection of health or morals, in order to safeguard the reputation or the rights of others, in order to prevent leakage of secret intelligence received, or the need to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judicial officer the constraint", freedom of expression can be obtained in the limit.[61] Similarly, in the "India constitution" also allows for "reasonable" to restrict freedom of speech, such as "public order, national security, ethics and etiquette".[62]

"The first amendment" on "freedom of religion" safeguard clause does not appear in the British "bill of rights" and the French "Declaration of human rights".

 

Reference.

(omitted)