constitutional rights of conscience, however vital to a free society is absolute in character. Thus, while the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion goes a long way, it does not serve to protect acts judged to be morally licentious, such as poly amorous marriages. Children cannot be required to execute the flag salute which is forbidden by religious belief… Similarly freedom of speech, often defended by the courts, does not extend to the seditious utterance of a conspiracy which, is the considered opinion of congress, poses a clear present danger to the safety of the republic (Dennis v. United States, 1951) but the court has emphasized that the act of congress on the subject the Smith act does not forbid mere advocacy of abstract doctrine but only incitement to action designed to accomplish the illegal purpose of overthrowing the government (Yates v. United States, 1957). The state is not free to license the privilege of giving speech… yet it may punish for ‘fighting words’ which may lead to breaches of the peach (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942) or the publication of obscene matter (Roth v. United States, 1957).[2]The Constitution states that a person has the right to publish or print any news or opinions that they deem worthy. Yet today some laws prohibit this freedom, by creating laws in order to protect the individual’s privacy, we are limiting ones ability to report facts. Furthermore many records previously available for the public to view are now sealed. On the opposite end of the spectrum new freedoms are being allowed. In a court case, “Justice Joseph Teresi has struck an important blow for constitutional rights and an open judicial process by allowing cameras to televise the murder trial.”[3] By allowing a camera into the courtroom people are better able to get a grasp on our judicial system in the United States. This decision also allows citizens to view first h...
