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." — First Amendment to the Constitution The First Amendment protects several basic liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. It is far from easy to interpret what this amendment means, and court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The definitions have changed throughout American history, and the process continues today.

Freedom Of Religion
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in two clauses or sections: the "establishment" clause, which prohibits the government from naming an official church, or religion; the "free exercise" clause that allows people to worship as they please. Notice that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First Amendment, and it is not found anywhere else in the Constitution. Most people do not realize that the phrase was actually made up later by Thomas Jefferson. In 1802, when he was president, he wrote that the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause was designed to build "a wall of separation between Church and State."

There have been court cases on the subject of freedom of religion. They deal with rejecting prayer in public schools and denying government financial aid to religious schools. They also include banning polygamy (the practice of having more than one spouse), restricting poisonous snakes and drugs in religious services and limiting the right to decline medical care for religious purposes. There are some religions that use poisonous snakes and illegal drugs for religious purposes.

Freedoms Of Speech And Of The Press
Free speech is one of our most precious liberties, but free speech often conflicts with other rights and liberties. The courts have had to think about the question, "What are the limits of free speech?"

Courts use a basic principle to decide the limits of free speech. The test is called "clear and present danger." It was set in a famous case called Schenck v. the United States from World War I. Charles Schenck was an antiwar activist. He was arrested for sending flyers to men that encouraged them to ignore their draft notices. The government claimed that Schenck threatened national security, and the Supreme Court agreed. The principle was established that free speech would not be protected if a person was a "clear and present danger" to U. S. security.

What is free speech? The definition is not easy. The courts have identified three types of free speech, each protected at a different level:

Pure speech is the expression of thoughts and opinions before an audience. The courts have generally protected pure speech from government regulation.

Speech-plus involves actions, such as demonstrating or protesting, as well as words. Speech-plus is not generally protected as strictly as is pure speech because actions can be physically dangerous. The courts have ruled that demonstrators may not block traffic, endanger public safety or trespass illegally.

Symbolic speech technically involves no speech at all, but it involves symbols that the courts have judged to be forms of free expression. This category includes symbolic actions such as wearing black armbands in school and draft-card burning. Both of these symbolic acts were in protest of the Vietnam War. Symbolic speech is highly controversial. However, the Supreme Court did uphold the right of an individual to burn an American flag in a 1989 case called Texas v. Johnson. Many of the same principles that apply to freedom of speech apply to the press. However, the courts have ruled that the government may not censor information before it is written and published, except in the most extreme cases of national security.

Freedom Of Assembly And Petition
Freedom of assembly and petition are closely related to freedom of speech, and have been protected in similar ways. Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime." Generally, that point of view has prevailed. Freedom of assembly has to be balanced with other people's rights if it disrupts public order, traffic flow, freedom to go about normal life or peace and quiet. Usually, a group must apply for a permit. However, a government must grant the permit as long as officials are able to prevent major disruptions.

For over 100 years after the Constitution, the First Amendment protected these freedoms only in theory. In the 20th century, people challenged the government in court when they believed their rights were in danger, and the First Amendment took on a stronger meaning. It remains the single most powerful instrument for protecting the sacred freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition for modern Americans.