The first amendment

                The first ten constitutional amendments were proposed by Congress in September 1789 and ratified by the required number of states by the end of 1791. Taken together, they are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. For well over two centuries now, the Bill of Rights has helped to define what it is to be an American. Most famously, the Bill of Rights protects positive rights such as the right to free speech, to peaceful assembly and the existence of a free press. The Bill of Rights also upholds negative rights such as freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. It holds practical meaning (such as the right to plead the fifth) alongside those concerns that have become largely irrelevant in the modern era (such as the third amendment which protects citizens from having to give house room to soldiers). Finally, the Bill of Rights contains arguably the most contentious constitutional right of all; the right to bear arms.

As one might expect, the first amendment sets the tone for the whole document. It reads as follows; “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.” It is a clear and bold statement that the rights of the individual and the press will be protected via the Constitution. As you are doubtless aware, there are a vast range of examples that fall under the rubric of the first amendment. For instance, you may already be aware that an American citizen cannot be banned from speaking about their experience of serving on a jury. In terms of free speech, an interesting one to consider is that of Morse v. Frederick (2007). In a 5-4 ruling, the Court concluded that the first amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing free speech amongst students. The School had quite reasonably sought to suppress comments that seemed to encourage the use of illegal drugs. In another case, that of Snyder v. Phelps (2011); the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a public sidewalk about a public issue cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress. The case concerned public protests during a funeral, a practice most Americans would find distasteful.

As a consequence of 9/11, there is little doubt that the rights of the individual have to some extent been curtailed. The real question for us all to consider is “have these restrictions been justified given the actual threat?” Civil libertarians claim that the state has exaggerated the threat of terrorism in order to restrict the right to free speech and assembly (Wolf, 2008; Morozov, 2011). This is certainly a cogent argument with many relevant examples to consider. What is perhaps surprising is that the Obama administration has been more draconian concerning civil liberties than the Bush/Cheney era. For instance, data-mining has been expanded via the PRISM program. The current administration has also increased usage of the Biometric Optical Surveillance System and the CAPPSSII program (in which the authorities profile the entire population in order to identify a flight risk or suspected terrorist). It should also be noted that the Obama administration bugged the phone of international allies such as the German leader Angela Merkel and sought a court order to examine the e-mails of James Rosen from Fox News. It should also be noted that the Guardian newspaper in Britain claimed that the President had ordered the creation of a list of foreign targets for cyber-attacks and authorized hits on foreign nations. All these examples could easily be interpreted as a curtailment of our right to free speech and our freedom of assembly. Yet perhaps the most interesting case study to consider is the treatment of the NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden. In June 2013, he informed the media that the US government had violated our right to privacy on a massive scale. As a result of his actions, we know that the current administration had been spying on the internet activity of American (and foreign) citizens. Along with Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden has been charged with espionage by the current administration, despite the President’s pledge to lead “the most transparent administration in history.”

There is of course a counter-argument to consider here. Firstly, terrorists may well be more sophisticated in their methods than ever before. A ‘shifting of the goalposts’ might reasonably necessitate a more robust curtailment of civil liberties. Secondly, the public would doubtless prefer a tough stance against the threat of terrorism than be subject to another attack comparable to 9/11. Moreover, the public is simply not in full possession of the facts. The President, the Secretary of State and the secret services have access to information over the threat of terrorism that we simply never will. As the Indian statesman Mahatma Gandhi once said; “never judge a man until you have walked in his shoes.”