What balances have been struck in applying the First Amendment?

Answer 1

Numerous different and competing interests have been applied to limit the language of the First Amendment, in various aspects of the Amendment.

Here's the full language of the Amendment: 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.

With regard to speech, there are obvious limitations, such as "fighting words" and things like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

With regard to the press: in the seminal case of Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court, while making plain that prior restraint is an exceptional and rarely to be granted option, held that the press does not have unfettered rights. The example used in Near as being one in which prior restraint might be legal would be in the case of a story that might reveal troop movements.

Litigation over the establishment of religion is frequent, ranging from creche cases to establishment of things like Offices of Faith Based Initiatives.

The right of assembly is also limited: there can be constitutional limitations on the right to demonstrate, so long as the limitations are reasonable and are not based on the content of the speech.

Answer 2

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the "Establishment Clause") or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Answer 3

You can't say FIRE in a crowded building.