Freedoms and Boundaries of the First Amendment

Post # 4

Nathaniel Bryant
April 3, 2021

The First Amendment: What Does It Mean And How Does It Apply?

____________________________________________________________________

Through the analysis of the First Amendment and its use in an American context, numerous freedoms and expressions can be found that are key in examining scenarios and events that challenge these principles. In the First Amendment, 6 clauses, or freedoms are present. These are freedom from religion, of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. The First Amendment condones free speech and expressive action. While free speech speaks for itself, "expressive action" is the type of action promoted and protected under the First Amendment like a march or sit-in. What is not condoned under the First Amendment are non-expressive actions like burning a car, smashing buildings, and looting. While these parameters for what is and is not condoned apply to individuals, some might ask what that means for private corporations. 

Source: Terms and Concepts; 3:48

To some, a corporation violating your First Amendment rights would appear to be a punishable offense in a legal sense, but that is not entirely true. To examine why this is, it would need to note the role of the "State Action Doctrine" in this matter. The source "Terms and Concepts" by Dean Smith, states "that without government involvement, no constitutional claim can be made because only the government can violate your rights; thus, the first amendment doesn’t reach private actors".  

Concerning the State Action Doctrine, the government cannot interfere or do anything because only the government can violate your rights in this context leaving most private companies to do as they please. If you were posting or saying things that went against the company or group that you are employed by and they told you to stop or they would fire you, they could not be at fault.

Source: The Denver Post

An example of this can be found in the article "Majority of Western Colorado University faculty want president fired for comparing Jan. 6 riot to BLM protests". Here, the president of Western Colorado University, Greg Salsbury, nearly lost his job for equating the Jan. 6th riots with BLM rioters. He pointed out BLM's "rioting, burning, looting, and violence have emerged from protests across our country – resulting in seemingly endless confrontations, destruction of entire cities, properties, serious injuries, the public’s overall sense of security, and deaths," (Hernandez, Elizabeth. “Majority of Western Colorado University Faculty Want President Fired for Comparing Jan. 6 Riot to BLM Protests.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 31 Mar. 2021). 

After his statement was made, his faculty organized together in opposition to the president of the university. They organized a vote and despite the president not losing his job, he stated that he would try to better communicate with his faculty and do better. Despite him being the president, the faculty's vote challenging his position, the government would not be able to interfere even if he had lost his job because it is separate from the government.

In contrast, if someone feels censored online then his issue would more depend on the site they were censored on and what it was for. If the censorship was for threats or for content that is not safe for that site's terms, then the person cannot do much. The issue would be more if the site fitted into the area of "public accommodation".  If the site or platform is meant to be a free platform for all voices that is representative of all masses, then censorship would need to be closely examined. If a platform is specifically catered to one side and for a particular purpose then opposing it would be a different issue. But as a public online platform, the platform represents speech as it would in a physical platform. The issue comes in censorship comes when they are censored in these sites where it is considered public but is filtered with a specific narrative or ideology in mind. The main issue comes in why you are censored. If you are criticizing the government or political matters, and the platform silences you on a false charge then censorship is an issue. These sites have terms and conditions they must abide by as ground rules for the platform. Then the individuals enact their speech and expression in relation to these terms and conditions to express their voice. If you speak out while violating their rules, then you are justified in censorship like on Twitter or Facebook. If the site owner or moderator gets it wrong then it is able to be disputed in court based on certain platforms like YouTube. When people are censored, more for their content and less because they violate the rules does the government has a place to come in. These platforms, if they are public, are held to a certain standard that makes it an equal plane field for different ideas. 

When these platforms become private platforms open to the public, then the answer is to shift to another platform to put out ideas. The issue here is when the sites you are censored on have a monopoly, leaving no other open public sources to go on. This scenario is where most who have an issue being censored lie. 

____________________________________________________________________

Sources

Source: The Fourteenth Amendment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qnMm6_xG50

Source: Terms and Concepts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0c0beUaNhI&t=6s

____________________________________________________________________

Work Cited

Hernandez, Elizabeth. “Majority of Western Colorado University Faculty Want President Fired for Comparing Jan. 6 Riot to BLM Protests.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 31 Mar. 2021, www.denverpost.com/2021/03/29/western-colorado-university-president-salsbury-blm-riot-protests-controversy/.