The first amendment in the Constitution protects an individual’s right to speak freely. Despite the fact, certain statements cannot be made if said statements cause harm to others. The government has restrictions for words such as “fire” or “bomb” and they have historically not have been allowed because these words present a “clear and present danger.” The idea, challenged in 1950 in the case Feiner v New York (1951) where a man protesting government policies almost started a riot. The case has been challenged repeatedly since the original settlement in 1951 so that people’s speech in public spaces continue to be restricted. The restriction is not due today to what is said but due to the way in which the words themselves impact people’s behavior. Statements as these present a clear and present danger to the safety of the public.
Irving Feiner started protesting at Syracuse University and he encouraged people to attend a leftist rally and fight…show more content… The justices were Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley Rutledge, Harold Burton, and the Chief of Justice Freud Vinson. Vinson was a man for the Constitution. He resolved cases on constitutional grounds. Which meant that his decisions were mostly determined and influenced by the constitution. He did an amazing job judging and is certainly qualified for as a wartime director of economic stabilization then becoming a Chief of Justice. After his death, the court adapted more modern views on solving cases while still following the constitution. The court voted 6-3 in favor of New York. Oyez published, “According to the court, Feiner’s arrest was a valid exercise of the interest of the community in maintaining peace and order on its streets”. Feiner’s speech almost started a riot and that violated the right to peaceful assembly. Feiner broke the peace with his speech and decided to continue after told twice to
