Analysis/ Comparison and Contrast
Abstract
This work examines the various constitutional changes in the United States during the period of the French revolution, most so around the period of 1789 (Levi 14). It looks at the various .perceptions that the constitutional changes implied to the society and the projected actions that the changes may attract. In this analysis, many thoughts are explored to determine the way the society responds to what it does not understand. On the same note, it looks at the government trails in trying to galvanize power and authority. On the other hand, it looks at the way the government uses its arms to limit the ,powers of the press and the spread of information to the public, in order to contain power.
Keywords: Power, Government, Press, People, Constitution
The national congress of the United States of America enacted laws that help the federal government to control the press. They anchor themselves on the constitutional backing, claiming that the constitution prohibits anybody or any institution to communicate anything against the government (Levi 10). According to the section two of the constitution (SEC. 2), nobody is allowed to communicate in any form, something that criticizes the government. It explicitly stipulates that any person should not make any print, utterances, publication or in any cases, any outrageous and malicious information about the government. This means that even if the people were criticizing them for limiting the press, the constitution requires that their freedom do not pass a particular scope.
The Person that Law is Designated to Protect
According to the congress, the law intends to protect the government itself, the officials working there, the president and the congress. The law also seeks to protect the good people of the United States of America. The law is against any move by any person to defame or vilify the government and its officials.
The Law Does Not Abridge the Freedom of the Press
They believe that the law allows for the freedom of speech and allows people to interact and exchange information. They exclaimed that they do not intend to create any law that infringes the freedom of the process. They believed that the amendments only foresee to protect the authority of the nation from those who have ill intention. In other words, the laws are not targeting anybody or institution, unless it does not respect the rule of law. In detail, even the religious movements are controlled by the same legislation (Mason and Grier 22). Therefore, it is not true that the congress instigate moves to lower the power of the press. In this respect, the congress only wants that whatever gets in to printing and publication remain factual and devoid of malicious expressions
The Congress is Not Expanding the Role of the Government and Authority
According to the congress, they legislation changes are not pegging excess power to the authority, but rather exercise the penal just the same way other governments perform in other states. They believe that the constitution is clear on the role of the government and the way the congress does in regards to the role of the authority (Levi 22). It is clear that the three arms of the government have areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not true to assume that the congress is vesting too much power on the authority.
Unconstitutional Prohibition
The congress says that it would be unconstitutional to deny people the freedom of expression and association. In other words, it is one of the fundamental rights that every individual enjoy the liberty of expression and association. This forms the basic reason why the constitution gives enough space for the freedom of worship. However, all these must take place under the whims of the rule of law.
What the Author of the First Amendment Intended
According to Hay, the author of the first amendment intended to communicate to the people that the congress does not seek to limit the constitutional powers of the press. He added that whatever the constitutional document contained is not worth contention the way lawyers and other professionals put it. The main reason for the amendments is to avoid any misleading information to the public. In fact, every individual or institution is free to make any communication, but within the confines of the law.
Distinction between Protected Speech and Malicious Speech
According to Hay, there is a difference between a protected and a malicious speech. He says that a malicious speech would lead people to mischiefs, hence must be discouraged. On the other hand, the protected speech is that which is guided and does not get to the extreme. Meaning, a person only says what is worth saying. In more illustration, the protected speech per say, is where no one would use the speech made by another person in a wrong way.
The Role of the Courts on the Protected Speech and Malicious Speech
The courts have the fundamental role to play in regard to the protected and malicious speech. The court is the arm of the government responsible for the interpretation of the law. Therefore, the court determines the person found to have misused an information or dispensed a misleading information, and helps to determine the kind of penalty. It decides the kind of fines the offender should pay for his or her actions. It is very possible for the court to perform this function, supported by the sections of the law. On the contrary, it is a challenge to determine the harm of the malicious speech, since it is never serious.
Malicious Speech Would Not Prove Harmful Even if Allowed
According to the arguments, the malicious cannot instigate violence even if allowed, since people have the ability to reason out information that is true and another, which is not real. Therefore, there is no big problem with the people who spread malice even if they are allowed to do so.
Sedition Act and the Freedom of the Press
Besides, Hay does not see the sedition acts as limiting the power of the press, but rather thinks that it looks into ways to avoid any information that lacks factual backing on the public domain (Mason and Grier 25). He says that the law only bars people from sharing wrong information, but gives total freedom rights for people to get the right information.
Sedition Act and the Role of the Authority
Sedition acts gives excess power to the authority. In fact, the authority does not have any power to make laws that contravene the fundamental rights of the people. In fact, the three arms of the government have areas of jurisdiction. Hence, the act gives powers to the authority to arbitrary punish people for suspected malicious communication about the government.
The Harm of the Sedition Act
If the act were enacted, it would lead to violence, since the public perceives it to mean limiting the power of the press and people. In other words, people would reject it and it would lead to a national uproar leading to unrest.
Sedition Act Was Unconstitutional
In this precept, the act gave too much power to the authority to determine the level of what criticisms the public can communicate about the government. It then went ahead to give powers to the authority to arbitrary punish people for suspected malicious communication about the government. This is very unconstitutional and should not be allowed.
Works Cited
Levi, Edward H. An introduction to legal reasoning. University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Mason, Alpheus Thomas, and Grier Stephenson. American constitutional law: introductory
essays and selected cases. Routledge, 2015.
