Bill of Rights For Real Life: Expression

0:01 [Music]

0:24 as 21st century Americans we think of free speech in terms of our own individual rights but that was not how it all began our first amendment has its roots in England’s Middle Ages their nobles in Parliament could discuss political matters more freely than in public as long as they didn’t upset the king it

0:44 wasn’t until 1689 that an English Bill of Rights gave Parliament total freedom to debate political matters most early American colonists extended this right to their representatives protecting public and political speech in their colonial charters and constitutions political speech was Central to what the framers had in mind when they adopted the First Amendment

1:06 and the Bill of Rights obviously this was a country born in the midst of political controversy and debate not just a war Revolution but an intellectual Revolution and that was one of the main things they passed down to us that robust freedom of descent and debate on political matters protecting political speech has always been the

1:26 centerpiece of the First Amendment because we are are a democracy where we the people are the governors we elect those who represent us to effectuate public policy if we are not free to criticize them and debate and discuss their policies then we don’t have democracy anymore than we have

1:47 individual liberty in a famous World War I protest case the Supreme Court ruled that not all speech criticizing the government was protected by the First Amendment especially when that speech advocated on unlawful action shank versus the United States was one of the first great Supreme Court decisions involving freedom of speech it arose

2:09 from a very controversial War World War I shank was a denter in that war and he was arrested for passing out leaflets urging people to resist the war and to resist the draft the case reached the United States Supreme Court and one of the Supreme Court’s most famous justices Oliver W Holmes wrote the opinion of the

2:30 court and it was an opinion that on the one hand many people see as a victory for freedom of speech and on the other hand many people see as a defeat in the Court’s unanimous decision Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that shank was not protected since during wartime such expression would create a clear and present danger like shouting fire in a

2:51 crowded theater Holmes decision helped clarify the difference between protected and unprotected speech almost half a century later later in the 1964 case of Garrison versus Louisiana the high court struck a blow in favor of citizens rights to criticize their government protecting controversial district attorney Jim Garrison after he’d called

3:12 local judges lazy and inep in the opinion justice is called Free Speech concerning public affairs the essence of self-government 5 years after Garrison protests against the war in Vietnam further tested the limits of protected speech this time in the case of Tinker versus de mo one day in 1965 Mary Beth

3:34 tinker and her brother John took their opinions to school in De Mo Iowa they wore these armed bands to school to protest the war in Vietnam and it seemed to me that they were doing the things that were right not only right for them but that were right in terms of our religious values and in terms of the political values that I associate with

3:55 the American experiment the Tinker children were suspended from school after the principal claimed their armbands were unlawful and disruptive attire but the Supreme Court disagreed ruling that the tinker’s armbands were an act of symbolic speech and didn’t interfere with the school’s educational mission that very same year the court protected even more extreme criticism of

4:17 the government in Brandenburg versus Ohio the court upheld the right of a speaker to Advocate violent resistance to government policies just so long as the speech does not incite listeners to engage in what the court called imminent Lawless action the Brandenburg decision applied the protections of the First Amendment far beyond shank Garrison or

4:37 Tinker setting a broad standard for protected speech used by the court to this day I’m Tim O’Brien

5:22 [Music]

6:16 the prime purpose of our movement is to advance our great race don’t give up your freedom of speech part of the people is in our I say to you this afternoon that I would rather down the highways of Alabama than make a Butchery of my conscience that’s

6:46 [Music] right you refusing to answer this question I inde not then I’m going to ask you the question ask are you a member of the screenwriters guil [Music]

7:09 [Music] [Music] I believe in freedom of expression unfortunately there are certain very close-minded factions that are attempting to steal that freedom away

7:31 from us what’s bugging tell them to get

7:58 lost e [Music]

8:37 freedom of expression played a key role in the birth of our nation angry over the Stamp Act colonists hung banners and tax collectors and Effigy from what became known as Liberty trees by the time of the Revolution dozens of newspapers were publishing American grievances against the British Patrick Henry asserted what he thought was the right of all Englishmen to

8:59 express their conscience when he proclaimed if this be treason make the most of it today first amendment protection is extended to areas of expression that the founders could not possibly have imagined this broader application of the First Amendment includes nonspeech that is pictures or photos on the internet and elsewhere as

9:19 well as symbolic speech which would include the right to burn the flag or where a t-shirt protesting a war in 1984 Gregory Lee Johnson CED his first amendment right of free speech when he burned an American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall Johnson said the burning was his way of protesting Reagan administration policies he was tried and

9:41 convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration senten to one year in jail and fined $2,000 but the US Supreme Court in a five to4 decision ruled that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because Society finds the idea itself disagreeable in writing for the majority

10:02 Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy reflected it is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who would hold it in contempt with respect to burning the American flag in political protest uh even though public opinion surveys show that the vast majority of Americans are deeply offended or outraged by the Viewpoint uh that is

10:25 expressed many people see it as an anti-patriotic Viewpoint that that is precisely the reason why you may not suppress that expression while flag desecration may be offensive the Court ruled that Johnson’s action fell into the category of expressive conduct and should be protected under the First

10:46 Amendment all across America political protests were part of the cultural landscape in the late 1960s and early 70s in California a 19-year-old expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket that said f the draft stop the war the question that the case posed was whether he could be

11:08 prosecuted for wearing that vulgar statement in a public setting in this case the corridor of a Los Angeles courthouse the state of California prosecuted him he was found guilty he was sentenced and he appealed that to the United States Supreme Court the US Supreme Court said Cohen should not have

11:30 been prosecuted for wearing an anti-war message on his clothing as in the Johnson case the vote was close 5 to4 one Justice noted that the statement made on Cohen’s jacket while provocative was not directed toward anyone and that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric in 1996 Congress passed the

11:51 communications decency act intended to protect young people from indecent material found on the internet congress’s intent in passing the communications decency act appeared to be an attempt to use the same kind of Regulation that it had used for television and radio and transfer that

12:12 to the Internet so the same kind of prohibitions on sexually explicit material that it had traditionally required for radio and television it was now going to try to impose on the internet largely Congress I think felt to protect children the constitutionality of the Act was

12:33 challenged and attorney general Janet Reno appealed directly to the Supreme Court for a ruling if you look at what the law actually did it outlawed and subjected to very severe criminal penalties any expression that was deemed by any Community to be quote indecent or

12:53 patently offensive close quote uh the ACLU argued in its constitutional challenge to that law and the Supreme Court agreed with us unanimously that those terms are so vague and so sweeping that they literally would have endangered any and all expression with any sexual content no matter how valuable no matter how informative the

13:16 Court held that the ACT did indeed violate the First Amendment because its regulations amounted to a restriction of free speech and the ACT did not clearly Define what would constitute indecent Communications in 2003 however the court did acknowledge an important limitation on internet speech ruling that public libraries receiving federal funds could

13:37 be required to install anti-pornography filters on computers writing for the majority chief justice William renis noted that the constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library while critics claim that filters interfere with free speech the Court held that filters restrict individuals access to the speech of others not their

14:00 own speech I’m Tim O’Brien

14:40 [Music]

15:01 of all forms of political expression the right to assemble is the oldest traceable directly to the Magna Carta in 1215 English nobles were given the right to come together in preparation for petitioning the king these rights were extended to all citizens by the founders of the American Constitution they agreed that the right to assemble for the

15:22 purpose of petitioning the government needed protection the framers you have to remember were in the process of Revolution they were in the process of meeting together on street corners uh in Boston and in Williamsburg and around uh the colonies to protest what was going on uh in terms of the treatment of the colonies by the English crown and so it

15:44 was in that context of meetings in town halls and on street corners and pamphleteering that the freedom of assembly was really impressed upon them is vital American citizens use their constitutional right to assemble every day when they go to school school board and City Council meetings much of our political discourse takes place in town hall meetings Across the Nation and

16:06 political party conventions again another example of freedom of assembly take place for the purpose of nominating a presidential candidate the political arrest of the 1960s brought freedom of assembly to the Forefront where civil rights marches protected by the First Amendment there may be some tear gas

16:26 ahead yeah I say to you this afternoon that I would rather down the highways of Alabama than make a Butchery of my conscience right such protest is protected by freedom of speech and assembly in Edwards versus South Carolina the US Supreme Court said that black students should not have been

16:46 arrested and convicted of trespassing while peacefully protesting segregation beginning with the civil and racial arrest of the 1960s and 70s the number of cases concerning the right to assemble began to grow if freedom of speech is to go beyond uh merely individual self-expression which is certainly important uh but even going

17:08 beyond that when assembled individuals raise their joint voices in a common protest or to Advocate a common position uh then they’re much more likely to have influence on public policy uh and much more likely to have influence on the elected officials who decide public

17:31 policy in 1977 the Nazi party of America planned to hold a March in heavily Jewish skoki Illinois the town prohibited the Nazis from marching the Nazi party sued maintaining their First Amendment right to free speech and assembly were violated the American civil liberties Union intervened and said as loome as these people are under

17:55 the First Amendment they have a right to speak they don’t have a right to act to do something criminal but if all they’re going to do is speak and show their symbols that’s part of being an American eventually the case ended up in the US Supreme Court at issue whether a March could be banned simply because of its

18:16 content and the Supreme Court said no almost two decades later the Supreme Court ruled on another March this one in Boston planning a St Patrick’s Day parade veterans refused to include an Irish American gay lesbian and bisexual group a Massachusetts State Court subsequently ordered the veterans to

18:38 include the group but the Vets claimed that forcing them to include the gay group in their privately organized parade violated their free speech and the Supreme Court agreed the essence of the St Patrick’s Day Parade case is that if it’s your parade you get to choose who marches in it it wasn’t that gay and

19:00 lesbian groups or gays and lesbians as individuals don’t have free speech rights of course they do but they don’t have the the right to exercise those Free Speech rights on somebody else’s dime or in somebody else’s parade and so as the 20th century came to a close the right to assemble expanded to include

19:21 many nonpolitical Gatherings a much broader area of protection than the founders had envisioned I’m Tim O’Brien