As Floyd Abrams said the first Amendment is only forty-five words: “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”. Freedom of speech and press is the freedom to say and view anything without censorship. Freedom of expression is an expression used to represent both synonymously, meaning the expression of opinion, receiving, and viewing any information without interference of the government. Freedom of speech and freedom of press are constitutional rights recognized under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was introduced by Congress after the increasing demand for the protection of individual rights in 1789 under the leadership of James Madison. The Bill of Rights became part of the constitution in 1791. Some free speech are more unprotected than others and they depend on the type of speech it is and where a free speech takes place. There are three different forums: Traditional public forums, designated forums, and nonpublic forums. Traditional public forums include public areas like public parks, and sidewalks and people have the strongest first amendments rights in these locations. Designated forums are public properties opened for the expression of public opinions such as municipal theaters, and the freedom of expression rights are the same as they would be in a traditional public forum until the designated forum is open. The government is allowed to limit what type of speeches are given but they can’t discriminate against people with different opinions. An example of nonpublic forum is airport terminals and even here the government can’t discriminate based on people’s opinion. Commercial Speech is one type of speech not entitled to full protection of the first amendment. Commercial Speech is when the speech is being given to potential consumers, for example, advertisements. True threats and obscenity are also not protected by the first amendment.Hate speech is identified as offensive speech concerning race, religion, or gender. Although it is considered hate speech the rules of the first amendment don’t change. Even Hate speech is considered to be protected under the first and fourteenth amendments unless it meets the requirements of the first amendment that are already established for example, fighting words. Though there are federal laws for hate speech one of them which was established in the court case Wisconsin v. Mitchell which illustrated that a more severe punishment can be handed down for crimes motivated by hate speech. There are also speech codes adopted by many colleges and universities to prevent hate speech. Some examples include the university of Michigan which promised discipline if hate speech was used. This was ruled as unconstitutional and too vague by the federal district court in the court case Doe v. University of Michigan (1989). The university of Wisconsin speech code was also ruled out by a federal district court. Even thought speech codes have been declared unconstitutional many time they are still increasing in America.In United States, the Supreme Court requires a good rationalization for interference with these rights compared to other democratic countries. There have been many court cases in history that have set the line between free speech and hate speech and what we are aloud to view in terms of the press. Some historical cases include Cohen v. California (1971), Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), Near v. Minnesota (1931), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971). Some recent freedom of expression cases include Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas (2000), Counts v. Cedarville School District, Arkansas (2003), Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), and Federal Communication Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.(2012).Historical CasesCohen v. California (1971): Cohen wore a jacket with the words “Fuck The Draft.” He was sentenced to jail for thirty days for “maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quite of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct.” Cohen testified that he wore the jacket to show his anti-Vietnam War viewpoints. The court ruled that Cohen’s wearing of the jacket could have promoted someone to act violently to forcibly remove the jacket and therefore result in disturbance of peace. The court’s decision was that under the first amendment cohen’s speech was not considered as a disturbance of peace. First cohen was tried for any statute that would require for the courthouse where Cohen was arrested to be proper and orderly and certain words like the words on the jacket would not be aloud in that place. Cohen’s case was also not an obscenity case because it can’t be reasoned that Cohen’s Jacket could have produced a violent reaction in any one regarding the hint to the Selective Service System. The jacket also doesn’t fall into the category of the “fighting words” because no one could have taken the words on the jacket personally. There was also no prove that Cohen intended to arouse someone violently on purpose. There was also an argument that Cohen’s choice of expression was shoved on unsuspecting viewers and that the state has a right to protect the unwilling viewers. Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993): According to a Wisconsin statute the penalty will be increased if someone “intentionally selects the person against whom the crime…is committed… because of race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of the person.” Mitchell and his friends beat up a white guy to unconsciousness after watching a movie where a black boy gets beaten up by a white man while he was praying. Mitchell was charged with aggravated battery that carries maximum of two years in jail but his sentence was increased to four years with seven years the maximum. The supreme court held the statute unconstitutional. According to the court, the state “cannot criminalize bigoted thought with which it disagrees.” The argument that Mitchell presented was that the state cannot punish someone for their discriminatory motives but the federal and state anti discrimination laws also make it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in 1984 we dismissed the argument that this violates an employers First Amendment rights. We also upheld that it is aloud for court to consider racial hostility of a person when determining their sentence in Barclay v. Florida (1983). According to Pollock, the court’s reliance on R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) decision doesn’t prove anything because it prohibited the use of fighting words while this case is directed towards a behavior that is not protected by the first amendment. Pollock believes that Mitchell’s rights were not violated by the sentencing. Near v. Minnesota (1931): The Minnesota law approved of the enjoining of a Minneapolis newspaper called The Saturday Press. The newspaper had published articles concerning the law enforcement not taking any action against a Jewish gangster “in control of gambling,bootlegging, and racketeering in Minneapolis,” The Minneapolis chief of police was charged with offenses such as “illicit relations with gangster and participation in graft.” The supreme court held the decision that “any publication whatsoever which is a malicious, scandalous or defamatory newspaper.” should be stopped from publishing and circulating. This case violates the fourteenth amendment’s Due Process Clause which protects freedom of the press and freedom of the speech. Defamation is an untrue statement written (Libel) or spoken (slander) against someone to hurt their image or reputation and and injure someone in their business or profession. The statute requires that the authorities can bring the owner or publisher of a newspaper in front of a judge if they are charged with publishing “defamatory matter.” The defendant has to prove that the everything written was true and that they had a valid motive for publishing the content published. Until then the newspaper is enjoined from publishing anything. The supreme court decided that prior restraints is not supported by the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Prior Restraint is he government action that prohibits freedom of expression before it can take place. The two types of prior restraints include a rule that requires a speaker to get a license before speaking and a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. Both type of restraints are most often considered unconstitutional with little exceptions. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): This case is also known as the Pentagon Papers Case and was concerned with the top secret 47-volume study titled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Vietnam Policy.” The study was given by a pentagon Official to the New York Times and Washington Post illegally. The United States prevented both Newspapers from publishing them claiming it would be injurious to the nations security if they were disclosed to the public. The court decided on prior restraint for New York Times but was not able to secure it for Washington Post. The court used statements from the secretary of state and the navy generaal to support their decision of prior restraint and to prove that there could be serious harm to the nation’s security if the publications were not stopped. Recent Issues and casesSund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas (2000): In Texas city residents that were members of a church wanted teo books removed, Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate, because they depicted Homosexuality. After the books were removed from the children’s section of the library and placed in the adult area by signatures of 300 persons that petitioned for the books to be removed, another group filed a suit. After the trial, the district court enjoined any enforcement of the resolution that permitted the removal of the two books. The court ruled it unconstitutional to remove books from the library based on viewpoint discrimination and for giving the right of the state over the selection and removal of books from the library to “any 300 private citizens”. Counts v. Cedarville School District, Arkansas (2003): A school in Arkansas, Cedarville School District restricted the students access to the Harry Potter series claiming it showed them “disobedience and disrespect” and dealt with “witchcraft and occult.” The students were required to get a signed letter from parents to get a book from the library. The district court ruled the decision as the violation of the students First Amendments rights to read and that the Board can’t take that right away just for the reasons that they don’t agree with the contents presented in the books and because of unnecessary fear of disturbance. Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001): The Milford Authorized the district residents to use it’s building for after school activities. The Good News Club, a private christian organization for children ages 6 to 12, Requested to have their after school meeting at the school. They were denied access on the grounds that it is against the community policy to allow anything akin to religious worship on school grounds. The club filed a suit that they were denied their Freedom of speech under the first and fourteenth amendments. The district court found that the club only discussed matters from a religious point of view and were not “worshiping” which the school usually allows. The court ruled that since the “school had not allowed other groups providing religious instruction to use its limited public forum” they could deny the club access without it being unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.