Viewpoint Wiki - All Viewpoints, No Gatekeepers

This article traces the historical development of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, from its drafting through subsequent enforcement and interpretation. For the text and current legal status of the amendment, see First Amendment. For the events surrounding early enforcement actions against the press, see Alien and Sedition Acts.

Concepts of press liberty and religious dissent in the American colonies drew on English legal and political traditions, including the lapse of licensing requirements for the English press in 1695 and the writings of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English pamphleteers. The 1735 trial of New York printer John Peter Zenger, in which a jury acquitted Zenger of seditious libel despite his having printed criticism of the colonial governor, was cited by later American lawyers as an early precedent favoring jury discretion in press cases.¹⁾ Religious establishment varied by colony: Massachusetts and Connecticut maintained tax-supported Congregationalist establishments, while Virginia maintained an Anglican establishment, and Rhode Island and Pennsylvania had no establishment at all.

During the Revolutionary period, several state constitutions adopted between 1776 and 1780 included provisions protecting free exercise of religion, freedom of the press, or the right of the people to assemble and petition. Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, drafted principally by George Mason with revisions by James Madison, declared that religion could be directed only by reason and conviction, not force.

The Constitution as drafted in 1787 and signed in September of that year contained no bill of rights. During ratification debates in 1787 and 1788, Anti-Federalist writers, including those publishing as “Brutus” and “Federal Farmer,” argued the omission was a defect, while Federalists including Alexander Hamilton, writing as “Publius” in Federalist No. 84, argued that an enumerated bill of rights was unnecessary and potentially dangerous, since enumerating exceptions to powers not granted might imply such powers existed.²⁾ Several state ratifying conventions, including Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, ratified the Constitution while recommending amendments protecting individual liberties.

James Madison, elected to the First Congress from Virginia, had opposed a bill of rights during the Philadelphia Convention but changed his position, in part due to correspondence with Thomas Jefferson and pressure from constituents including Baptist dissenters in Virginia who sought protection from religious establishment.³⁾ On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced a set of proposed amendments to the House of Representatives, drawing on state constitutional provisions and proposals from state ratifying conventions. Madison's original religion clause read that “no national religion shall be established,” and a separate clause proposed protecting freedom of speech, press, and the right peaceably to assemble.

The House and Senate revised the language through committee and floor debate over the summer and fall of 1789. The Senate rejected a version of the religion clause that would have merely prohibited preference among denominations, and the final conference language combined the religion clauses with the speech, press, assembly, and petition clauses into a single amendment. Congress approved twelve proposed amendments on September 25, 1789, and sent them to the states. Ten, including what became the First Amendment, were ratified by the requisite three-fourths of states by December 15, 1791.⁴⁾

The first major test of the speech and press clauses came less than a decade after ratification. In 1798, amid tensions with France during the Quasi-War, the Federalist-controlled Congress passed four statutes collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts; see Alien and Sedition Acts for full treatment. The Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized the publication of “false, scandalous, and malicious” writing against the federal government, Congress, or the president. The Adams administration's Justice Department brought roughly twenty-five prosecutions under the act, predominantly against Democratic-Republican newspaper editors and at least one sitting member of Congress, Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont, who was convicted and imprisoned in 1798.⁵⁾

Madison and Jefferson, then out of executive office, drafted resolutions adopted by the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures in 1798, arguing the acts exceeded federal constitutional authority. The Sedition Act contained a sunset provision and expired on March 3, 1801. No prosecution under it reached the Supreme Court for constitutional review during its operation. Disputes over what this episode establishes about original understanding of the speech and press clauses are addressed in first-amendment-sedition-act-original-meaning-debate.

For most of the nineteenth century, the First Amendment's restraints applied only to the federal government, consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in *Barron v. Baltimore* (1833) that the Bill of Rights did not bind state governments. State and local authorities during this period enacted and enforced various restrictions on speech and the press without First Amendment constraint, including Southern states' antebellum laws restricting abolitionist literature and, after the Civil War, Comstock-era federal and state obscenity statutes beginning in 1873.

The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 later provided the textual basis for eventual incorporation of First Amendment protections against the states, though this did not occur until the twentieth century. See fourteenth-amendment-incorporation-history for that development.

Federal prosecution of speech resumed during World War I under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which criminalized various forms of speech opposing the war effort or the draft. The Supreme Court upheld convictions under these statutes in a series of 1919 decisions, including *Schenck v. United States*, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated the “clear and present danger” standard, and *Abrams v. United States*, in which Holmes, joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, dissented and argued for greater protection of dissenting speech.⁶⁾

In *Gitlow v. New York* (1925), the Supreme Court assumed for the first time that the speech and press protections of the First Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, though it upheld Gitlow's conviction under New York's criminal anarchy statute. *Near v. Minnesota* (1931) extended incorporation explicitly to the press clause, striking down a state statute permitting prior restraint against a newspaper. The religion clauses were incorporated later, in *Cantwell v. Connecticut* (1940) for free exercise and *Everson v. Board of Education* (1947) for establishment.

Free exercise and establishment doctrine developed substantially in the postwar decades, including *Everson*, *Engel v. Vitale* (1962) on school prayer, and *Sherbert v. Verner* (1963), which adopted a strict scrutiny standard for burdens on religious exercise later modified by *Employment Division v. Smith* (1990); see Free Exercise Clause History. Speech doctrine developed through cases including *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan* (1964), which established the “actual malice” standard for defamation suits brought by public officials, and *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1969), which replaced the “clear and present danger” test with a standard requiring incitement to imminent lawless action.

• The proper original-meaning interpretation of the speech and press clauses, particularly whether the Founding generation's tolerance of seditious libel prosecutions like those under the 1798 Sedition Act is compatible with an originalist reading of the Press Clause, remains disputed among legal historians. See first-amendment-sedition-act-original-meaning-debate.
• Some historians argue Madison's shift toward supporting a bill of rights reflected sincere philosophical evolution, while others frame it as primarily a political response to Anti-Federalist pressure in his 1789 congressional election. See madison-bill-of-rights-motivation-debate.
• The intended scope of the Establishment Clause-whether it was meant to prevent only preferential treatment among Christian denominations or to impose broader separation between government and religion-is contested. See establishment-clause-original-meaning-debate.

⁷⁾