Want this question answered?
Freedom to express your opinion and religion.
The First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech. But it should be noted that if you threatened the politician, that is not protected under the constitution-- that is considered "fighting words." However, if you simply voiced your opinion, without threats of violence and without harassing the politician, you are entitled to First Amendment protection.
Education is important in creating intelligent public opinion.
The Constitution 7th Amendment The Constitution 7th Amendment The Constitution 7th Amendment
Yes, this type of political speech is protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The protection ends when you enter the area of perjury or you make damaging statements that you know are false. If you go into court to testify and state under oath (falsely) that the President did something, that is perjury. If you go to the newspaper and falsely claim that you saw the mayor take a payoff from a developer, that is libel. Speech that is just opinion or is hyperbole (Obama is too thin to be President, Bush is the worst President in history, etc.) is protected.
Freedom of speech
Actually there are different classifications of the bill of rights. First off, the most important are the first 10. Amendment 1 states that we have the freedom of speech, press and assembly and so far that is the most important Amendment. My opinion is that the 10th Amendment is the least important because it states that all Amendments that are not stated in the bill of rights are still protected which really does not make much sense to me for the factHOPE YOU ENJOYED THE ANSWER- Winfrey Akande***I am a 7th grader***
Fortas defend the majority opinion that free speech in school is constitutionally protected by saying that such an expression isn't disruptive to ...
The First Amendment, included in the Bill of Rights, is the source for our freedom of speech. In part, the First Amendment says that Congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the concurring opinion was written by Justice Potter Stewart. He agreed with the majority's ruling that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law was unconstitutional but wrote a separate concurrence to emphasize that the freedom to marry was a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He argued that the Constitution prohibits interracial marriage restrictions just as it forbids measures that discriminate based on race.
Miller v California was a Landmark United States Supreme Court case that changes the precedence involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the a test called the Miller Test for determining what material was deemed obscene.
the majority opinion. -apex