First, explain what civil liberties are. Then, look at the first amendment. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.” In practice, however, the Supreme Court has never regarded these protections as absolute. What exceptions has it carved out in the protection of these freedoms? Why have certain types of speech and press been excluded from constitutional protection? Has the Court been successful in balancing free expression with other important political values (what are these other values?)? Why or why not? Over time, do you think the government and the Supreme Court regulation of these freedoms has done more to expand or repress free expression? Why? Explain and defend your arguments by referencing pertinent court cases.

My goodness! These look like assignments from a whole course!

How would you like us to help you with this assignment?

No it is an essay question and I need the answer.

You've posted in the wrong forum. We do not do homework assignments or tests.

Civil liberties refer to the basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution to protect them from the government's interference or infringement. These rights include fundamental principles such as freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition.

Now, let's examine the exceptions to the freedom of speech and press protected under the First Amendment. While the First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," the Supreme Court has recognized certain limitations on these freedoms. The Court has established several exceptions to protect public safety, national security, and individual rights, and to prevent harm or disruptions caused by specific types of speech or press.

One key exception recognized by the Court is the concept of "clear and present danger." This means that speech or press advocating immediate unlawful action or inciting violence can be restricted, as it poses a direct threat to public safety. The famous case of Schenck v. United States (1919) involved a defendant who distributed pamphlets criticizing the military draft during World War I. The Court held that speech creating a clear and present danger to national security could be limited.

Other exceptions include defamation and libel laws, obscenity, fighting words, hate speech, and incitement to illegal activity. Defamation laws are designed to protect individuals from false statements that harm their reputation. Obscenity is speech or press that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value and is offensive by community standards. Fighting words refer to speech intended to provoke violence against another individual. Hate speech, which encompasses discriminatory or offensive language based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc., can be limited to prevent harm or harassment of certain groups. Incitement to illegal activity involves speech or press that explicitly encourages or calls for imminent unlawful actions.

These limitations on free expression stem from the belief that certain types of speech or press can cause harm or disrupt social order, with potential consequences that outweigh the value of unrestricted expression. The Court aims to strike a balance between protecting individual liberties and promoting important collective values and interests, such as public safety, privacy, equality, and the rights of others.

Whether the Court has been successful in balancing free expression with other political values is a matter of debate. Supporters argue that the Court's decisions have effectively safeguarded individual rights and prevented social harm, while critics argue that some restrictions have unduly limited free expression and stifled open discourse.

Over time, the government and the Supreme Court's regulation of these freedoms have seen both expansions and repressions of free expression. Some cases have led to expanded protection, while others have allowed for restrictions. For instance, landmark cases like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) affirmed strong protection for criticism of public officials, contributing to an expansion of free expression. On the other hand, cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) narrowed the definition of incitement to violence, providing greater protection for political speech.

Ultimately, the assessment of whether the regulation has done more to expand or repress free expression depends on one's perspective and interpretation of specific cases. The balance between free expression and competing values is an ongoing legal and social conversation that continues to shape the boundaries of our civil liberties.