The proliferation of methods to deliver our ideas and with more on the way, the First Amendment has and will continue to be interpreted and reinterpreted to provide protection from freedoms of expression being exercised by others. Many of us grew up hearing or saying 'Sticks and Stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me'. Today we are beginning to see the fallacy of this responsive taunt and our courts are taking measures to restrict those things that might produce such a reaction. Our freedom to express our ideas and opinions may be in jeopardy in the future as we enter the twenty-first century amid threats and a search for ethnic and cultural equality.
Our founding fathers penned a rather optimistic First Amendment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which reads; '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' (US Bill of Rights). While their apparent intent was to protect the freedoms of the people from the tyranny of an all powerful government, it is obvious the creators, wisely, also intended to leave the interpretation of these freedoms to each generation.
It can be noted that, today like never before, the interpretations of these freedoms are contingent upon many social factors such as fear, equality, security of homeland and government, and fairness.
Fear led to Sedition Acts in times of war, a desire for equality opened freedoms of assembly and expression in the fight for that equality. Many felt some were overstepping the bounds of the freedoms of others, as exhibited during equal rights movements across the country for example. The questions evolved. How can we insure our freedoms of speech and the press while also preserving and securing the rights of those who may oppose our views or beliefs?
These are questions we, as a society are being forced to face in ways we never imagined as we merge old ideals with new technologies.
With nearly 75% of our children having access to computers new questions of freedom of speech are being brought forth. In a recent case before the Florida Supreme Court emotional abuse has become an issue. Before legislation can be adopted the term 'emotional abuse' must be addressed and defined; an indication of the complexities facing the courts in the interpretation of the First Amendment. Cyber- bullying has become the new form of name calling. With some states stepping in to lobby for legislation, we have taken the bully off the streets and into the global media. A Recent survey by iSafe, a California nonprofit that works with schools and other organizations to improve internet safety' shows that 42% of children say they have been bullied on line. Rather than encouraging parents to take a more active interest by limiting internet use and access at home while teaching their children the consequences of such behavior, we are now looking at government patrol of our home computers.
Issues concerning access to pornography by minors, via the internet, is another matter of great concern today. Attempts at regulation of internet pornography resulted in the Federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. This Act prohibited the knowing transmission of indecent messages to minors. Challenged, this and other legislation was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The indecent transmission and patently offensive display provisions were ruled to limit the freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment. Subsequent attempts at legislation, such as the Child On line Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 was deemed unconstitutional and replaced by the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000 which was ruled by the Supreme Court to be constitutional. However, attempts will continue to focus on creating legislation to curtail the viewing and use of pornography in the new mass mediated forums.
Educators and school boards have long been the subjects of lawsuits claiming infringement of First Amendment rights. Issues such as length of hair or skirts in the 60's and 70's have given way to issues of logos and other phraseology on clothing. In the recent case, Harper v. Poway Unified School District the, Appellate court upheld a lower court's ruling that upheld the school's prohibition of text on a student's shirt. The premise was that the slogan on the shirt was injurious to some students claiming the right to restriction because it "collides with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone" Another First Amendment freedom has also affected the schools as they struggle with implications of teaching Creationism and / or Evolutionism in the classrooms.
A recent ruling against teaching 'intelligent design' in schools is still being argued. Originally the Scopes Monkey Trial dealt with issues of religion, science and education, but today the struggle between creationists and evolutionists continues; each claiming the other's religion be taught in juxtaposition or not at all.
In another real world scenario, many feel that development of computer viruses should be illegal because of the damage these viruses can do. These people claim that there is a clear and present danger in such software. Consider, however, the programmer that creates a virus to test a machine or anti-virus software. It has been argued that if any information is undesirable or potentially dangerous under legislation, than there is a potential for abuse by those in power.
Spam, unsolicited email advertisements, and other annoying software are also being considered in regards to computer and internet safety and security issues. Introduced for consideration several years ago, the Can Spam Act of 2003 was approved and signed into law in December 2003. This act, is an attempt to control unsolicited commercial e-mail messages, and fostered arguments, in the face of continued bombardment by email messages, that legislation must be stronger.
While these are only a few of the issues we face today in regards to protection of our freedoms under the First Amendment while eliminating sources of concern and discomfort, we would be remiss if we neglected to look at other media and the problems we face. For example the Junk Fax Prevention Act was passed in 2005 and this act made it legal for unsolicited materials to be sent to a fax machine without express permission, and only provided that an 'opt out' notice appeared on the fax and that the sender had at some time spoken with the receiver. This is essentially legislation that infringes upon the property rights of fax machine owners in that they must pay the costs for paper and ink for each fax that is sent to them. Is this fair and does it really protect the freedoms of the receivers?
Other such matters may be on the horizon as we in turn embrace cellular phone technology. If the subscriber, who must in most cases pay for both incoming and outgoing calls, suddenly starts receiving solicitation calls, what recourse has he or she, and what rights of the solicitor will need to be addressed? Additionally, we see story after story in the news about disagreements on the rights of photographers versus their subjects and suits attempting to force journalists to release their source information.
As we embark on a new era of mass mediated communications in a global community, we will no doubt be forced to reexamine our ideas of the rights outlined in the First Amendment, as our forefathers intended. Their vision gave us a document and Amendments that has enabled us to interpret its intentions to suit the needs of our times.
While we may disagree on points of law, or the moral or ethical implementation of the rights and our respective responsibilities under our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, we must, if we are to continue as a free democratic nation, be willing to defend each other's rights to express their ideas, even if we don't agree with those ideas.
With the expansion of society to a truly global community with talk of a New World Order and the passage of the Homeland Security Acts, which where drawn and passed under a cloud of fear, we must be ever diligent in our pursuit of fair and equitable legislation in our desire to implement protection for our children and ourselves, and to insure the stability of the freedoms granted us under the Constitution.
I am a teacher and internet guru who has been online since about 1989. A wealth of information and expertise is mine to share and I does so FREELY and without reservation.
If you need help, [http://www.LifeWithBarbara.com] is the place to go to access FREE ebooks, articles, and information to help you make a success of your business. No Opt-in. No payment required. Just help when you need it.
If you are looking to create a website to express your views or market a product, check out this informational FREE video at http://barbaracagle.ws. Just click on the video to view.
