First Amendment Research Paper

North Carolina A&T State University

Communications Law & Ethics
Darren Rippy
March 2021
 Abstract

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution was put in place to protect

American’s basic human rights. One of those rights is the freedom to assemble or the freedom

to protest. This Research paper will highlight exactly what is protected under the freedom to

protest right. The way protestors were treated in 2020 in the justice for George Floyd, Breonna

Taylor, ect. Protest, it is up for debate if their constitutional right to protest was violated. This

research will debunk any misconceptions about freedom of assembly.

 The United States constitution defined the country's central government and fundamental

laws, as well as guaranteeing people certain basic rights. In light of the Black Lives Matter

movement and the protests across the globe in response to the senseless killings of African

Americans at the hands of law enforcement, it is a reputable question as to if these American’s

constitutional rights were violated based on their treatment. The First Amendment protects

religious rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition. It protects

freedom of speech by preventing Congress from limiting the press or individuals' rights to freely

express themselves. With all of these rights being protected under the First Amendment you

would think the peaceful protest for racial equality would be well received. However, many

participants in these protests were tear gassed, hit with rubber bullets, and even arrested.

Due to protest that happened in 2020, many believe that the year has underscored the

importance of Americans living their First Amendment freedoms. The treatment of protesters

that were fighting for justice for George Floyd was a testament to that. The first amendment

protects our right to believe in new ideas, to share those ideas, to explain or defend those ideas in

the press, to hold public demonstrations in support of those ideas, and to lobby the government to

legislate in favor of those ideas. The actions of law enforcement during these protest heavily

violated American’s First Amendment right, at least at the surface level. Nearly 1,000 instances

of press violence were recorded in 2020, including denial of access, equipment destruction,

physical assaults, and 120 arrests. A First Amendment problem arises if a person or a group is

oppressed, silenced, isolated, or excluded, because we should all have equal access to our First
Amendment rights. Despite the fact that the protests were largely peaceful, protesters were

confronted with excessive police brutality, and upwards of 10,000 people were arrested.

According to the United States v. Cruikshank case, the Supreme Court said that the "right

of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of

grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers and duties of the national

government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and as such, under the protection of, and

guaranteed by, the United States." “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of,

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,” according to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Protesting is

regarded as a means of voicing one's views, allowing you to legally gather with other people to

air your concerns. Although the government cannot refuse its people the right to protest, it can

control protests by limiting the time, location, and manner in which they take place. Forms of

protest that devolve into crime, theft, or destruction of property are not allowed and can be

legally prohibited by the government, which may have been the reasoning that prompted law

enforcement to act with such force due to the looting that occurred.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in

1969 stemming from the Civil Rights movement. It upheld the freedom to protest while still

allowing some limitations. Any licensing provision for free speech in publicly owned areas that

is not strictly specified and objectively enforced is unconstitutional, according to the Court.

Governments do not deny a person's constitutional right to peaceful protest, however they may
restrict the time, location, and manner in which the protest is held. A 1989 Supreme Court

decision by the name of Ward v. Rock Against Racism upheld this principle in a case

questioning the constitutionality of New York City's noise ordinance as it applied to Rock

Against Racism's concerts.

Several factors affect the government's willingness to limit such demonstrations. For

instance, violent demonstrations are banned in all countries. The First Amendment guarantees

“the freedom of the people to freely assemble.” Since the government has vital operations to

perform, government officials can be able to restrict demonstrations inside a courthouse. To

carry out its tasks, it must be able to manage its activities. Particularly in a public forum, the

government has the authority to enforce fair time, location, and manner constraints that are

content-neutral, leave plenty of other choices available, and are narrowly tailored.

When it comes to the U.S. Constitution it’s important to remember not all government

property is treated the same for First Amendment purposes. The public-forum doctrine was

developed by the United States Supreme Court to determine if some forms of public property

may be used for First Amendment expressive purposes. Traditional public forums, selective or

appointed public forums, and nonpublic forums are among these groups. Other government

property isn't really considered a forum.

All in all, protests must be peaceful, and the government has the authority to regulate

speech in a content-neutral, fair time, venue, and manner. Besides this, as stated by the Supreme

Court in Kokinda, “government ownership of property does not automatically open the property

to the public.” Since the government has vital operations to perform, government officials can be
able to restrict demonstrations inside a courthouse. To carry out its duties, it must be able to

manage its activities. The government cannot claim to be performing internal operations on its

own. There, speech limitations will prompt a platform review and a higher level of judicial

scrutiny. Overall, the Right to Assemble is vital to American society because it ensures that all

people have a voice and can openly communicate with one another in public for a common cause

or mutual value.
 Work Cited

The power of protest. (2021, February 04). Retrieved March 03, 2021, from

https://firstamendmentmuseum.org/the-power-of-protest/

Subcommittee to hold briefing on first amendment violations at black lives matter protests.

(2020, June 25). Retrieved March 03, 2021, from https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-

releases/subcommittee-to-hold-briefing-on-first-amendment-violations-at-black-lives

Understanding your First amendment rights when protesting. (2020, June 22). Retrieved March
03, 2021, from https://adamsbischoff.com/blog/understanding-your-first-amendment-rights-
when-protesting/

Staff, F. (2020, June 03). Is there a right to peaceful protest? Retrieved March 03, 2021, from
https://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/is-there-a-right-to-peaceful-
protest.html
Do we have an unfettered right to protest on government property? (n.d.). Retrieved March 03,
2021, from https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/do-we-have-an-unfettered-
right-to-protest-on-government-property/