Freedom of speech is found within the first amendment. Where is freedom of expression located?
2006-11-17 04:33:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is something that the courts have defined and redefined through cases.
With rights come responsibilities, so you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre if there is no fire.
You cannot preach the violent overthrow of the nation or demand that a certain individual be murdered.
2006-11-17 04:48:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 14⤊ 2⤋
The freedom of expression is one of those "implied powers" hidden in the Constitution.
Like the 1st answerer said, the 5 freedoms in the 1st Amendment are all ways for Americans to express their values and beliefs.
Of course, like all of the "implied powers" in the Constitution, freedom of expression can be abused and made into an ideological slippery slope, where anyone is free to express anything.
Fortunately our country still bans many expressions that insult this country and/or its citizens' deepest values and beliefs, like flag burning or online pornography.
My favorite expression towards this country: God Bless America.
2006-11-17 07:44:54 · answer #2 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The freedom of expression includes all of the elements of the first amendment... speech, religion, assembly, right to petition... those are means of expression.
2006-11-17 04:36:37 · answer #3 · answered by jh 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As a Christian, I actual have some extreme concerns on the subject of the project in how that's worded in this query. i'm hoping that for the duration of a few unspecified time sooner or later, people will comprehend that sexual identity and the call of enticing in sexual intercourse with yet another individual are particularly 2 separate themes. it form of feels that maximum of people prefer to evaluate the two themes one and an identical. That if a individual says something against sexual intercourse, that they seem to be a hateful individual? What saddens me the main are people who decry any sort morals standards being made via the Christians, exterior of the church we are additionally being instructed via activist communities that to set ethical standards is misguided. That if we don't say stay and enable stay, we are hateful? yet, it particularly is suited for others to communicate approximately ethical standards? How is this no longer a double known to objective to place regulations on what's asserted interior a church development? So, if we pass the form to assert that a team can censor what's asserted interior the church partitions, are we no longer placing a double known in terms of unfastened speech? there are a number of communities that are constitutionally secure that maximum people might sense are fairly offensive. even with the indisputable fact that, i do no longer see a circulation limiting those communities, that could positioned on hoods and burn crosses, even with the indisputable fact that, maximum people might say that they do have the splendid to freedom of speech, even although their team is unacceptable to maximum people. So, why is there a circulation abruptly to violate the form on 2 of our rights: the splendid to unfastened speech, and the splendid to freedom of religion. Is it by way of fact some people do no longer purely like the assumption of a team asserting something approximately sexual intercourse? .
2016-10-22 06:21:35 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not expressed, but it is an implied protection under "freedom of speech" in the 1st Amendment. If one weren't allowed to "express" themselves, "freedom of speech" would be useless.
2006-11-17 04:46:54 · answer #5 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its found when you read the constitution with a liberal mindset. Freedom of speech is protected, and I suppose that the applied freedom of expression is protected....as long as it doesn't infringe on some elses rights, well-being, or instill fear, hatred, or in most cases today, Anti-American sentiment.
2006-11-17 04:39:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I tend to agree with Dukalink on this one.
What constitutes yelling "fire" in a theatre or "Hijack" in an airport? Lots of symbolism, lately.
2006-11-17 04:53:42 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Dunkalunk said it best.
Using symbolism to get your point across denies objecting parties a voice. (like burning the flag)
2006-11-17 05:03:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
On the back side.
2006-11-17 05:00:01 · answer #9 · answered by abbeyroad54321 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋