Izzy's Guide
to Starting & Running an Underground Paper
Made from 100% Recycled
Pimply Teenager Angst
1st Amendment Theory: As developed by the courts, it carries three parts:
1. The assumption that people enjoyed freedom of speech before they entered the
social contract which resulted in a Constitution. Because freedom of speech lies at the heart
of a free society, it must be guarded.
Since you're a high school student and
probably have no clue what social contract theory is, the basic gist is the idea that we
all started out in a natural, brutish state, and we willingly came together to form a
society and government, and a contract which spells out our rights and limitations on
government.
2. Any encroachment by government, in the form of statutes banning specific types of
speech or expression, is a serious matter, so serious the courts may assume that these
restrictions are unconstitutional until proven otherwise.
3. In such cases, the government has the burden of proof. There are different levels by
which the courts scrutinize the statute in question which has abridged free speech, but the
government has to show a reason or compelling interest, in some cases, for restricting the
First Amendment.
How the courts rule on whether a statute is constitutional rests on the above premises. The
courts, as for every area of law, develop
standards, tests, and criteria by which to make their decisions. Sometimes a court will
develop something new and if it's a good idea, other courts will follow and soon,
you have a huge body of law, known as precedent, or case law.
As a general rule, the courts will go pretty far to uphold the First Amendment. The
theory of First Amendment rights, as you can see, places the burden of proof on the
government to prove why they should be allowed to bridge the freedom of speech. In
RAV v. City of St. Paul (1992), in which a white
youth burned a cross on an African American family's law, the Supreme Court
ruled that the city ordinance which prosecuted the youth for his disorderly conduct was
unconstitutional. Why? Because the ordinance specially targeted specific types of
expression, and constitutionally protected symbols. So regardless of the nature of the hate
crime, the Court deferred in favor of the First Amendment. In short, they will not allow
viewpoint discrimination or censorship against specific points of view.
How does this affect you? Well, you can rest assured that the Supreme Court doesn't take
censorship very lightly. Any abridgment of speech or expression MUST by supported by a sound
reason. If you're writing and asking fellow students to bomb buildings at school, then
don't expect the First Amendment to protect you. But if you're protesting a policy that you think
is impractical, such as uniforms, you have every right.
isabel@oblivion.net | AIM: Isabeetle | ICQ:
1757411
Sign the Guestbook | View the Guestbook
|
