The Legitimacy of the 1st Amendment

The Legitimacy of the First Amendment

The First Amendment in the United States Constitution protects the freedom of speech, among other things, which is a reason why it is often a major topic of interest in court cases across the country. While every law that a government puts into effect is questioned from one viewpoint or another, the viewpoints of political cynics and critical citizens seem to be two of the major perspectives. One such case appears in the film “The People vs. Larry Flynt,” where a court case that centered around the First Amendment becomes a national story when it makes it all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. In the film, a ruling is made reinforcing the fact that the First Amendment even protects, “things done with motives less than admirable”, which brings about the discussion on the legitimacy of the ruling from the perspectives of both a political cynic and a critical citizen.

A major argument of political cynics is that while governments claim to act for the common good, they are in fact tools for serving the interests of those who hold power (Nathanson 5). The people who agree with this idea would view the court’s ruling as bad for society because it means even a person experiencing emotional distress can’t win a court case over an instance when they are publicly embarrassed. Political cynics would claim that the government is showing that they understand there is a law that allows citizens the ability to publicly embarrass another person and still deals out no sort of punishment. Cynics would point out that the government has again proven that they have too much power when it comes to deciding what is and is not acceptable in society even if it means negative consequences for some of its citizens. This continues to prove the cynics argument that the government can choose to interpret the laws in which ever way they choose, which allows them to make rulings that may benefit their personal motives or beliefs.

One group...