美国宪法第一修正案是我们国家权利法案的一部分。第一修正案可能是美国宪法最重要的部分，因为该修正案保障了公民的宗教、言论、写作和出版、和平集会的自由，以及对政府提出不满的自由。此外，修正案要求在教会和国家之间保持分离。我们对美国宪法的第一修正案是这样写的;国会不得制定关于确立宗教或禁止自由行使宗教权利的法律;或剥夺言论自由或出版自由;或者是人民和平集会和请愿申冤的权利。第一修正案的制定是因为公民要求保证他们的基本自由。如果没有我们的第一修正案，宗教少数派可能会受到虐待，政府可能会建立一个全国性的宗教，抗议者可能会受到伤害或被监禁，媒体将无法批评和报道有关政府的事实，公民也无法组织起来进行他们认为需要的变革。虽然第一修正案被写入了我们的宪法，但书面文字的含义的翻译经常受到挑战。 Some people believe freedom of speech should not include hate words, pornography, and vulgar language in our music or on the radio or public television. In addition, there are people who believe in freedom of religion but only if the faith is similar to their own and there is a constant debate regarding freedom of the press and what newspapers should be able to report. Because interpretation of the first amendment is sometimes challenged, some court rulings on important cases regarding freedom of speech, religion, and press have changed some perceptions. For example the court case Schenck v. United States (249 U.S. 47, 1919) in regards to the first amendments freedom of speech. This case involved the Espionage Act, which was enacted during World War I. The Espionage Act stated that during wartime interfering with the draft and trying to make soldiers disloyal to the country or disobedient was seen as a crime. After the Act was passed almost 2000 people were accused of violating this law and were put on trial. Mr. Charles Scheneck was against the war and to protest he distributed thousands of pamphlets to persons who had been drafted. The pamphlets said that the government had no right to send U.S. citizens to other countries to kill people. The government charged Schenck with violating the Espionage Act and said that Schenck's pamphlets were intended to weaken the loyalty of soldiers and to obstruct military recruiting. Schenck said that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional. He said that the charges against him broke the First Amendment's promise that "Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech." (Cornell, 2006). After the trial went through the federal courts, the case was in the end judged by the Supreme Court in 1919. The Supreme Court upheld Schenck's conviction, saying that the charge did not violate his First Amendment right to free speech although the judge did say that in many places and in ordinary times Mr. Schenck would have had a right to say everything that he said in his pamphlets. However, the judge said that how far a person's freedom of speech extends depends on the circumstances. The judge believed that during a war the government has the power to prevent obstructions to recruitment. Therefore, the government also has the power to punish someone who uses words that are proven to cause such difficulty. The judge took the argument that the question in each case regarding freedom of speech should depend on the circumstances in that if the words create a clear and present danger that the government has a right to get involved. The decision of the judge in Schenck v....