why is the first amendment so important essay

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of Speech

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution . The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court , in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn’t Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:

• Obscene material such as child pornography
• Plagiarism of copyrighted material
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I . The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa , organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts . Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts . Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

First Amendment (1791)

What It Says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Pentagon Papers

The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press stands as an essential right if the people are to learn anything beyond the “official” information that the government distributes. Yet government leaders have complained that some information that the media has released (or was about to release) could have jeopardized national security. This was the case in 1971 when first the New York Times , and then the Washington Post and the Boston Globe , published excerpts from the still-classified Pentagon Papers. The documents were part of a highly secret study conducted by the Defense Department into why and how the United States had gotten involved in the Vietnam War. One of the people who had worked on the project, Daniel Ellsberg, became disillusioned with the war and believed that the public needed to know what the Pentagon Papers contained, despite their classified status. He secretly provided copies to journalists from several major newspapers. Although the documents dealt with events that occurred before he came to office, Richard Nixon believed that their publication hindered his ability to conduct the war and negotiate the peace. The Nixon administration called on the federal district court to issue an injunction against the newspapers to prevent them from publishing any installments of the Pentagon Papers. The government was seeking “prior restraint”—attempting to stop the newspapers before they published what they had, rather than punishing them afterward. The federal judge who heard the case asked the government’s attorneys to select the “ten worst cases” in which classified material would endanger the nation if published. When the government produced its list, the newspapers were able to demonstrate that the information was already public knowledge. When the judge refused to halt publication, the government appealed to the Supreme Court, which in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), decided by a 6-to-3 margin that the government had failed to justify prior restraint. “The press was to serve the governed, not the governors,” asserted Justice Hugo Black for the majority.

What It Means

The First Amendment may well be the best known of our constitutional protections, and possibly the least understood. The First Amendment’s free speech, assembly, and press guarantees allow citizens to express and be exposed to a wide range of opinions. It was intended to ensure a free marketplace of ideas—even if the ideas are unpopular. Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken word, but also all kinds of expression (including nonverbal communications, such as sit-ins). Under its provision, the media—newspapers, television, radio, books, art, advertisements, and the Internet—are fit to distribute news, information, ideas, and opinions. The amendment protects not only the speaker but also the person who receives the information. The ability to read, hear, see, and obtain different points of view is a First Amendment right, too.

The right to free speech is not absolute, however. The government may limit or ban libel (the communication of false statements about people that injures their reputations). The government can further restrict obscenity, “fighting words”—insults intended to provoke a fight—and words that present a “clear and present danger” of causing violence, to use the phrase of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. The government can also regulate speech through specific rules limiting the time, place, or manner in which it is made.

The First Amendment also protects the freedom of assembly, which can mean everything from gathering with a group of people to picket or protest to giving people the right to associate with one another in groups for economic, political, or religious purposes without unnecessary government regulation. Related to this is the right to petition the government, which includes everything from signing an actual petition to filing a lawsuit. The First Amendment protects individuals’ freedom of religion in two ways. It allows people to hold whatever religious beliefs they want and to “exercise” these beliefs, as by attending religious services or wearing religiously mandated items of clothing. The free exercise of religion also includes the right not to believe in any religion and not to participate in any religious “exercise.” The amendment further prohibits the government from endorsing religion in general or one set of religious beliefs in particular. The free exercise clause and establishment clause sometimes clash, and courts have to help keep the balance between accommodating people’s religious freedom and maintaining a neutral approach to religious believers and nonbelievers alike.

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment it is that the Government may not pro­hibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offen­sive and disagreeable.

First Amendment TIMELINE

1798 – editors imprisoned under alien and sedition acts.

A U.S. peace treaty with Great Britain angers France, which strikes back by seizing U.S. ships. On the verge of war, the Federalist majorities in Congress enact four bills collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts to silence pro-French sentiment in the United States. These acts make it a crime to criticize the federal government and its policies. Under this law, critical newspaper publishers are convicted and imprisoned. In 1800, the Democratic-Republicans win the Presidency and majorities in Congress. The new majority lets the Sedition Act expire, and President Thomas Jefferson pardons all those who had been convicted under it.

1836 – Efforts to stifle debate about slavery

As abolitionists develop the tactic of submitting many antislavery petitions to Congress, proslavery members of the U.S. House of Representatives adopt “gag” rules that bar such petitions from being introduced and debated. In 1844, former President John Quincy Adams, then a representative from Massachusetts, leads the effort to repeal these rules.

1918 – The Sedition Act punishes critics of World War I

After the United States enters World War I, the federal government imposes criminal penalties on all forms of expression that are critical of the war mobilization. Some nine hundred people are convicted under the law, and hundreds of noncitizens are deported without a trial. Congress repeals the Sedition Act in 1921.

1919 – Limits to First Amendment recognized in cases of “clear and present danger”

Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his opinion in Schenck v. United States , upholds the conviction of Socialist Charles Schenck for distributing antiwar leaflets in violation of the Espionage Act. Although under normal circumstances the First Amendment would have protected such activities, the Court holds that, in wartime, speech that poses a “clear and present danger of inciting imminent, lawless action” can be restricted, comparing it to “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

1948 – No religious instruction in public schools

In Illinois, the Champaign Council on Religious Education, composed of Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant groups, offered voluntary religious instruction to students in local public schools. The Supreme Court ruled in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. (1948) that such use of school buildings was unconstitutional because it was “a utilization of the tax established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups and to spread the faith,” and therefore violated the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment.

1961 – “Symbolic Speech” is protected

In Garner v. Louisiana , the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the convictions for disturbing the peace of five African Americans who protested segregation by staging a “sit-in” at an all-white restaurant. Justice John Harlan explains that a sit-in demonstration is “as much a part of the free trade of ideas as is verbal expression.” Similarly, in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court rules that the Des Moines, Iowa, School Board had been wrong to suspend three students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The Court bases its decision on the grounds that the students’ passive protest posed no risk of disrupting school activities.

1962 – Prayer not allowed in public schools

New York State’s Board of Regents rafted a nondenominational prayer for students to recite voluntarily at the beginning of each school day: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.” Ruling in Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the prayer’s lack of reference to any specific religion exempted it from the First Amendment’s prohibition against establishing a religion. Any statesanctioned prayer, the court argued, was an unconstitutional recognition of religion.

1964 – Supreme Court places limites on libel

L. B. Sullivan a Montgomery, Alabama, city commissioner, sues the New York Times for libel after it publishes a full-page advertisement criticizing anti–civil rights activities in Montgomery. Although the Alabama Supreme Court rules against the newspaper, the Supreme Court reverses that judgment in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court rules that public officials cannot sue for libel unless they prove that a statement was known to be false and made with “actual malice,” meaning that it was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

1966 – Freedom of Information Act

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requiring that government records be made available to the public and press upon request. Exceptions are made for documents relating to national security, confidential financial data, and law enforcement. President Johnson notes “a democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest.”

1976 – Money spent in political campaigns is considered “speech”

When Congress tries to limit expenditures in political campaigns, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo , invalidates those provisions that restrict candidates ability to spend their own money on a campaign, limit campaign expenditures by an outside group, and limit total campaign spending. The Court compares restrictions on spending with restrictions on “political speech.” The majority reasons that discussion of public issues and political candidates are integral to the American political system under the Constitution. In the Court’s opinion, government-imposed limits on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication reduces “the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.”

1989 – Restrictions on religious items displayed around government buildings

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged a Christmas crèche and a Hanukkah menorah displayed at the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989) the Supreme Court ruled that while not all religious celebrations on government property violated the First Amendment, anything that clearly expressed official endorsement was unconstitutional. The nativity scene inside the courthouse, with a banner reading “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” (“Glory to God in the Highest”) failed the constitutional test, but the menorah erected outside the building to “celebrate the season” was allowed to remain.

Related Resources

• Timeline: First Amendment Timeline
• Game: Bill of Rights Interactive Quiz
• Video: A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor: Freedom of Speech

Table of Contents

Remember Why the First Amendment is So Important

Columns appearing on the service and this webpage represent the views of the authors, not of The University of Texas at Austin.

For a country that purports to value our First Amendment right to freedom of speech, it has become clear that some of our elected officials don’t understand it.

State legislatures across the country have passed bill after bill that violate the First Amendment’s free expression protections — protections that limit the government’s ability to infringe on individuals’ speech.

Yet a recent survey of more than 3,000 Americans found that 94% value the First Amendment as vital, and more than half say that it should never be changed.

Now more than ever, we need a renewed focus on civic education to ensure Americans understand their constitutional rights. In particular, one study suggests nearly 1 in 5 Americans cannot name a single freedom listed in the First Amendment.

Still, elected officials are regularly quoted in the media, espousing plans to require social media platforms to carry certain speech or barring them from shutting down certain accounts. Ask honest constitutional scholars, and they’ll assure you these plans are unconstitutional.

This summer, a federal judge in Florida temporarily barred the state from enforcing a new law that targeted social media platforms that shut down accounts of political candidates or “journalistic enterprises,” allowing up to $250,000 in fines per day.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed several similarly unconstitutional bills. One, HB 20, purports to prohibit social media platforms from engaging in content moderation. Another, SB 4, aims to require Texas sports teams to play the national anthem.

The Arizona Legislature has repeatedly considered a law that would require parents to opt in to any curriculum that addresses gender identity, gender expression of sexuality — effectively limiting schools’ ability to teach about historical events including the Stonewall riots. It also restricted the teaching of HIV and AIDS awareness.

Doing so represents a clear violation of the First Amendment, which is one reason Gov. Doug Ducey — a Republican — vetoed SB 1456. Yet lawmakers persisted, reintroducing the measure.

So why are all these lawmakers, many of whom graduated from elite law schools, proposing laws that contravene the First Amendment? Perhaps it’s political theater. Or perhaps they simply need a bit of civics education.

Like our elected officials, it seems even we voters need a refresher course on these issues. Only 36% of Americans know that social media companies are not liable for the content users post on their platforms, while just over half of respondents knew the First Amendment protected flag burning as a form of free speech.

In numerous opinions during the past century, the Supreme Court has made clear that there are stringent limits placed upon the government when it comes to regulating speech.

As recently as June, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of a high school student who was sanctioned by her school for a social media post that contained a well-known, four-letter expletive. Although the court stopped short of saying public school officials could never sanction students for off-campus speech, it made clear that some speech is protected by the First Amendment.

In November, the Supreme Court will hear a case asserting that the City of Austin exceeded its authority to regulate speech when it enacted an ordinance that treats on-premises signage differently from off-premises signage.

Without a greater emphasis on civic education, and First Amendment rights in particular, many of us will continue to lack the knowledge and tools we need to fully participate in our governance, and taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for legal challenges to state laws that are plainly unconstitutional — laws that should never have been proposed or passed in the first place.

Our nation’s first president, George Washington, famously said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Free Speech Week offers a great reminder that many of us need to reeducate ourselves about the collective rights and obligations that we have as citizens living under a republican form of government.

Amy Kristin Sanders is an associate professor of journalism and law at The University of Texas at Austin, where she studies global free expression rights.

A version of this op-ed appeared in USA Today and the Austin American-Statesman .

Explore Latest Articles

May 31, 2024

Introducing a New UT Podcast: ‘AI for the Rest of Us’

May 29, 2024

UT’s Name on ‘The Drag’ Coincides with Peak Visits, SEC Celebration

Fossil Places Extinct Saber-Toothed Cat on Texas Coast

Why You Should Care About the First Amendment

The first amendment gives each of us freedom:.

• To set our own values.
• To express ourselves openly on whatever topic we want without fear of government control or punishment.
• To join with others to make our views known and perhaps create positive change on behalf of all of us.

These freedoms can help define who we are as individuals in a complex, changing, self-governing society.

The highest purpose of free expression is to bring about change in society. The First Amendment contains five different freedoms that allow us to do that. Freedom of religion allows us to develop our own values. Freedom of speech lets us express our views and values even when they’re critical of current systems. The freedom of the press allows us to get uncensored information about the world around us. Then you have freedoms of petition and assembly, which allow us to gather with like-minded people and ask for change. These are our most vital tools to having and living in the society that we want.

— Lata Nott , Freedom Forum fellow for the First Amendment

The First Amendment is the ultimate embodiment of just “feeling free.” In addition to being able to say what I want to say, I can read what I want to read, watch what I want to watch and listen to what I want to listen to. Now, I may not want to read a particular book, watch a particular television program or movie, or listen to a particular song or podcast, but it’s an exceedingly comforting feeling to know that my chosen book, program, movie, song or podcast is always waiting for me when I want it.

— Kevin Goldberg , Freedom Forum First Amendment specialist

The five freedoms protected by the First Amendment are what define us as a nation. They are unique in history and unique in the world today. In the founders’ view, it was absolutely essential to a self-governing nation that citizens be able to freely discuss, debate and decide on the best possible solutions for the greatest number of people. Our First Amendment freedoms make democracy work.

— Gene Policinski , Freedom Forum senior fellow for the First Amendment

All of our liberties flow from the First Amendment. By exercising freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, Americans have expanded civil rights and worked to create a more just and free society. Simply put, no significant movement for change in our history would have been possible without the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. We still have much work to do. But thanks to the First Amendment, Americans are protected to advance the ongoing struggle to achieve “liberty and justice for all.”

— Charles Haynes,  Freedom Forum senior fellow for religious liberty

The First Amendment is our blueprint for personal freedom, what Justice Benjamin Cardozo called the “matrix” – the indispensable freedom that ensures all other liberties. The First Amendment gives us the right to criticize government officials, to practice whatever religious faith we want or none at all, to report on controversial issues, to assemble together and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment gives us the opportunity to participate in our government, to make our voices heard, and to dissent from majoritarian views. It is the essence of freedom.

— David L. Hudson Jr ., First Amendment fellow of the Freedom Forum and law professor at Belmont University

This freedom protects all – even the growing number of religiously unaffiliated, or “nones” – as we each decide what values, principles and beliefs shape our lives, by forbidding the government from telling us what to think or believe.

Sometimes called the right of conscience, it protects all from action by government to control our thoughtful independence and prohibits the government from supporting any one faith or personal belief over others.

This freedom protects the expression of our individual values, ideas and opinions and prevents the government from stifling the spoken word and from controlling any of the ways we reach out to others. The government cannot control or punish any of us for what we choose to say, with very few exceptions that include defamation, true threats, obscenity, fraud and incitement to violent acts that endanger others. The government cannot silence any of us for the way we choose to speak – subject to reasonable “time, place and manner” rules so we don’t unfairly intrude on others’ rights.

This freedom protects our right to gather and report news and information, whether that is a news story, broadcast or post, a restaurant review or a political opinion. The information gathered by journalists allows people to make decisions and participate in democracy, such as by voting or petitioning the government.

This freedom protects our right to gather with people who hold the same views, whether that is in a meeting room, a stadium rally or with a single other person on a sidewalk. It is a clear path from developing our individual views to reaching out to others and meeting with those who share or support your views as a means of organizing and amplifying a message to make change or support the status quo.

The least-known freedom protects the ultimate use of the other four freedoms to defend and refine our system of laws and self-government. It protects us when speaking out to those in power, seeking change or asking for no change. It may protect actual petitions you might sign. It also protects speaking out at a local city council session or school board meeting. And it ensures our right to gather with others to hire someone else – a lobbyist, for example – to go to the government on our behalf.

Keep in mind:

The First Amendment only restrains the government’s power – not that of parents or private employers, for example.

Free Speech on Social Media: The Complete Guide

Social media platforms’ policies govern most speech users post to them.

Prayer in School: What’s Protected by the First Amendment?

Prayer in school is a divisive issue. Here’s what is – and isn’t – protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment in action

Protecting the First Amendment rights of others can be very hard to do. But defending these core freedoms for others – even those we strongly disagree with – protects our freedoms from anyone else who would take them away from us.

Here are some examples of people who exercised their First Amendment rights – and protected ours in the process:

10+ of the Most Prominent Sports Protests of All Time

These sports protests shaped conversations far beyond the final buzzer.

Athletes, Activism and the First Amendment: A Conversation With Nate Boyer

Ex-NFL player and Army veteran Nate Boyer talks about the power of the First Amendment.

9 Women Who Used the First Amendment to Shape History

These women embraced their First Amendment freedoms to champion causes they cared about.

Seven Pioneering Journalists Who Championed Civil Rights

Discover 7 civil rights journalists who helped break barriers.

LGBTQ Activism: 5 Must-Know Stories

How LGBTQ activists have used religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis: A First Amendment Champion

Few people in history have so exemplified the hopes of the nation’s founders that the First Amendment would enable future generations to make this country a better place.

Why the Freedom Forum cares about the First Amendment

The Freedom Forum views the First Amendment as the cornerstone of our government by, for and of the people. We envision a nation where everyone knows, values and defends those freedoms. And we believe that encouraging the broad understanding and vigorous use of these fundamental freedoms by the people is the best way to preserve and protect the First Amendment for future generations.

It’s not just us – Americans care about the First Amendment

Our conversations with people of all ages from all over the country show that we are not alone in our love for the First Amendment.

More than 90% of Americans consider the First Amendment vital, according to our Where America Stands survey .

Survey: Where America Stands on the First Amendment in 2023

Does America still love the First Amendment? It’s complicated.

Survey Says We’re Divided About Our Rights — and First Amendment Could Bridge Divisions

Where Americans stand on the First Amendment in 2022.

Learn more about the First Amendment

The Freedom Forum can help you better understand the First Amendment, how it works and how it affects you:

Recording in Public: Is It Illegal to Record Without Permission?

The specifics of recording in public – and what you can do with a recording – can get complicated quickly.

What Is Separation of Church and State?

Where did this term come from and why does it matter?

Is Obscenity Protected by the First Amendment?

Everything to know about obscenity and the First Amendment.

Is Hate Speech Illegal?

Everything to know about the legality of hate speech.

Flag Desecration: Can You Burn the American Flag?

How and why flag burning became protected speech.

What Speech Is Protected by the First Amendment?

What speech is protected by the First Amendment? What speech isn’t? Learn all about protected speech in this guide.

First Amendment Day is an important reminder of the rights we enjoy – and must protect

The first amendment connects us as americans, yet most citizens can’t name its five freedoms – religion, speech, press, assembly and petition..

In this simmering season of division and distrust, there’s one thing that just about all of us agree on: We treasure the First Amendment.

Saturday is First Amendment Day , a day to celebrate the document that allows all Americans – without government interference – to practice a faith or not, speak freely, publish ideas, gather in support or protest, and petition the government for change. It marks the day in 1789 when Congress sent the amendments that became the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights to the states for approval.

To salute the occasion, the Freedom Forum – an organization devoted to fostering First Amendment freedoms for all – will release a survey conducted in July and August 2020, when we asked more than 3,000 Americans how they feel about the First Amendment today. Our respondents came from every corner of the country and spanned age, gender, race and economic background – a true representation of our diverse nation.

Nearly all see 1st Amendment as vital

The big takeaway from the survey, titled "The First Amendment: Where America Stands"? Amid our disagreements on everything from politics to the pandemic, one value unites the vast majority of us: 94% of respondents – across generations and the political spectrum – view the First Amendment as “vital.” 

USA TODAY Opinion: Subscribe to our newsletter for more insights and analysis 

But we don’t agree on much else about it. Some findings surprised us – and we’ve been surveying Americans on this topic since 1997: 

►More than a third of Americans would give up free speech to get rid of hate speech, but an almost equal number support unfettered free speech . 

►69% say social media sites should be held responsible for allowing false or misleading information to be posted. 

►People are equally divided ( 37% to 37% ) over whether business owners should have to fulfill customer requests that violate their religious beliefs, while the remainder of respondents neither agree nor disagree. 

►Nearly 60% say the news media should act as watchdogs on the powerful, but only 14% trust journalists. 

►75% do not believe that government mandates due to COVID-19 infringe on the rights of assembly, speech and religion, but 1 in 4 people disagree.

►In a year when protests over racial injustice swept the nation, most people – 69%  – have never participated in a protest, rally or march. 

►73% of people have signed a petition , but only 14% could name it as one of the five First Amendment freedoms.

Ruhama Fernandez: I’m a Cuban dissident. We need America to stand with us against this communist regime .

Find out more about our survey at   WhereAmericaStands.org

Understanding your rights is vital 

The First Amendment connects us as Americans. It protects our right to express our deepest beliefs in word and action. Yet most Americans can’t name the five freedoms it guarantees – religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. In order to preserve and protect these fundamental rights for future generations, we all need to know, understand, value and defend these freedoms not just for ourselves, but also for each other. Even those with whom we disagree.

The 45 words of the First Amendment guarantee free expression, but the spirit of the First Amendment calls for more: To speak and be heard. To listen.

Because out of the marketplace of ideas more than 200 years ago came the American democracy. It does not equally serve us all. But the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment enable us to speak truth to power, shine a light on injustice and ignite – or oppose – change. It is through exercising our First Amendment freedoms we can ensure our democracy lives up to its highest ideals for all Americans.

Anay Remón García: Cubans didn't demonstrate merely because of bread lines or inflation. We want freedom.

On Saturday, celebrate the First Amendment by doing something to promote the diversity of experiences and perspectives that define our democracy. Share your deepest beliefs with someone. Reach across a political divide or your family’s dinner table and debate current events. Support your local news outlet by subscribing. Join a new group on social media and explore perspectives that are different from yours. Sign a petition for a cause you support.

And toast the fact that we all share these First Amendment freedoms, not just when we exercise them for ourselves, but when we defend the rights of others to do the same.

Jan Neuharth is chair and chief executive officer of the Freedom Forum . Follow her on Twitter:  @JanNeuharth

Research & Learn

Table of contents, first amendment overview essays.

The essays included in this collection give overviews of some of the most important areas of First Amendment law and scholarship. FIRE hopes that these essays explain the basics of First Amendment case law and jargon in a succinct, yet informative manner. This collection will expand on a regular basis, so please check back for more content.

Chilling Effect

The "chilling effect" refers to a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. Chilling effects generally occur when a law is either too broad or too vague. Individuals steer far clear from the reaches of the law for fear of retaliation, prosecution, or punitive governmental action. Read more about the chilling effect .

COVID-19 Emergency Measures and the First Amendment

The pandemic caused by the pervasive spread of the virus known as COVID-19 has placed significant pressure on government officials to act quickly to try to save lives and slow the spread of the virus. Many officials have responded with significant restrictions in the form of emergency stay-at-home orders, executive orders closing all but “essential” businesses, and bans on public gatherings — often of groups of more than 10 people. . . No matter one’s political beliefs, this time has also placed significant strains on First Amendment freedoms. Read more about COVID-19 emergency measures and the First Amendment .

Defamation refers to false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation. It encompasses both libel and slander. Libel generally refers to written defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation. Read more about defamation .

Fighting Words

The First Amendment may protect profanity directed against another. Then again, such intemperate speech may fall into a narrow, traditionally unprotected category of expression known as “fighting words.” Read more about fighting words .

Freedom of the Press

Collectively, this bundle of rights, largely developed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, defines the “freedom of the press” guaranteed by the First Amendment. What we mean by the freedom of the press is, in fact, an evolving concept. It is a concept that is informed by the perceptions of those who crafted the press clause in an era of pamphlets, political tracts and periodical newspapers, and by the views of Supreme Court justices who have interpreted that clause over the past two centuries in a world of daily newspapers, books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television broadcasts, and internet content. Read more about freedom of the press .

K–12 Expression and the First Amendment

Public school students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Such rights must, however, be considered in the context of “the special characteristics of the school environment.” This means that while public school students possess free speech rights at school, school officials can regulate speech more as educators than governments can as sovereign. Read more about K–12 expression and the First Amendment .

Nude Dancing

The First Amendment protects much more than the spoken or printed word. It also protects various forms of symbolic speech and expressive conduct. The Supreme Court has ruled that the display of a red flag, the wearing of a black armband, the burning of the American flag and yes, even nude performance dancing are forms of expression that when restricted, require First Amendment review. Read more about nude dancing and the First Amendment.

Overbreadth

Overbreadth is a supremely important concept in First Amendment law and a key tool for constitutional litigators. A law is too broad—or overbroad—when it not only covers speech that ought to be proscribed but also penalizes speech that should be safeguarded. Read more about overbreadth . 

Secondary Effects Doctrine

The secondary effects doctrine allows government officials to treat patently content-based laws as content-neutral. The animating logic is that government officials are not suppressing speech because of its content but because of adverse side effects associated with the speech, such as increased crime or decreased property values. Read more about the secondary effects doctrine . 

• Share this selection on Twitter
• Share this selection via email

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 3

• The Articles of Confederation
• What was the Articles of Confederation?
• Shays's Rebellion

The Constitutional Convention

• The US Constitution
• The Federalist Papers

The Bill of Rights

• Social consequences of revolutionary ideals
• The presidency of George Washington
• Why was George Washington the first president?
• The presidency of John Adams
• Regional attitudes about slavery, 1754-1800
• Continuity and change in American society, 1754-1800
• Creating a nation

• The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution.
• The Bill of Rights consists of guarantees of civil liberties and checks on state power; it was added in order to convince states to ratify the Constitution.

Ratifying the Constitution

• The executive branch would be headed by a president, who would be elected.
• The legislative branch would be composed of an upper house, the Senate, and a lower house—the House of Representatives. Representation in the House would be based on population—including counting enslaved men and women at the proportion of three to five for the purposes of representation and taxation. Each state would elect two representatives to the Senate.
• The judicial branch would consist of a Supreme Court and lower courts to interpret and apply the law.
• The First Amendment prevents the government from interfering with the freedoms of speech, peaceable assembly, and exercise of religion.
• The Second Amendment declares that properly constituted militias are a safeguard of liberty and that the right to bear arms will be protected.
• The Third Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes—an extremely contentious issue that had led the colonists to war with Great Britain.
• The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures of private property.
• The Fifth , Sixth , Seventh , and Eighth Amendments establish a variety of guarantees relating to legal proceedings and criminal justice, including the right to a trial by jury; protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, being tried twice for the same offense; the right to due process; prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment; and the right to face one’s accuser, obtain legal counsel, and be informed of all criminal charges.
• The Ninth Amendment acknowledges that the other eight amendments are not an exhaustive list of all of the rights and protections to which citizens are guaranteed, and the Tenth Amendment declares that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are to be left to the states. This reinforced the principle of federalism, or separation of powers, by ensuring that the federal government could not usurp rights and powers that were not explicitly authorized in the Constitution.

What do you think?

• For more, see Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: Vintage Books, 2010).
• For more, see Jack N. Rakove, Declaring Rights: A Brief History with Documents (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1998).

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

First Amendment :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 1 Footnote U.S. Const. amend. I . viewed broadly, protects religious liberty and rights related to freedom of speech. Specifically, the Religion Clauses prevent the government from adopting laws “respecting an establishment of religion” —the Establishment Clause—or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” —the Free Exercise Clause. The First Amendment also expressly protects the freedoms of speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition to the Government.

The Constitution Annotated essays discussing the First Amendment begin with the Religion Clauses, reviewing the history of these clauses before explaining, in turn, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Religion Clause section ends with an essay exploring the relationship between the Religion Clauses and the Free Speech Clause. The Constitution Annotated then turns to this latter clause, discussing interpretations of the Free Speech Clause before describing Supreme Court cases recognizing constitutional protections for freedom of association. Next, the Constitution Annotated explains the Free Press Clause. The First Amendment essays end by discussing the clauses protecting the freedoms of assembly and petition.

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — First Amendment — Why is the First Amendment Important: Citizens’ Freedom of Speech

Why is The First Amendment Important: Citizens' Freedom of Speech

• Categories: First Amendment Freedom of Speech

About this sample

Words: 1158 |

Published: Feb 9, 2023

Words: 1158 | Pages: 3 | 6 min read

Works Cited

• Ann Schmidt. (2021, December 15). History of the Bill of Rights: The First 10 Amendments. Investopedia.
• Dahl, R. A. (2003). How democratic is the American Constitution? Yale University Press.
• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
• National Archives. (2022, February 22). The First Amendment.
• Richard Lui of NBC. (2019, May 3). Why press freedom matters. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1pSY8Xsx8
• United States Courts. (n.d.). First Amendment. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/first-amendment
• United States Senate. (n.d.). The Legislative Branch. https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Constitution_day/Constitution.htm
• Zick, T. (2017). The First Amendment in the Trump era. Oxford University Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 635 words

1 pages / 552 words

2 pages / 685 words

7 pages / 3182 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on First Amendment

Gitlow v. New York stands as a testament to the enduring struggles inherent in preserving both free speech and state security in a democratic society. Through its expansion of First Amendment protections and its departure from [...]

When the majority of people think about the church, they think of the Bible, teachings, and people greeting each other in an atmosphere of love and acceptance. But there are also those who are somewhat more controversial thereby [...]

Despite being protected under the first amendment, the government is restricting more and more adult content due to its obscenity. Although some definitely find pornographic magazines, hip hop and rap music, and adult videos [...]

Historical Context: Examine the historical circumstances and political contexts in which the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights were created and their impact on their respective societies. Key Principles: [...]

When drafting the Constitution, the founders were aware of the many flaws already contained within it and foresaw the need to make additions in the future, prompting them to include the Bill of Rights as a first revision, and [...]

Gun control is a very heated argument throughout the United States. The 2nd amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, but that was back in the 1700s and things have changed very much since then. Now many people use [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Newsletters
• Reading History

Student’s essay on First Amendment wins top prize

News News | Apr 20, 2014

The Pitkin County Republicans recently held a civics-writing contest for Aspen High School. The following essay earned first place and was written by Elizabeth de Wetter, who received $250 for her piece.

Freedom of speech — The first and greatest amendment

Though all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights play an important role in our society, I value the First Amendment most highly. Not only does the freedom of speech protect our right to say what we want, but it also allows us to read, write, broadcast, and sing what we want.

While the other amendments also protect important rights, and will aid me at some point, they do not significantly affect my life. Since I have never been accused of a crime, sent to jail, or summoned to court, the Fourth and Eighth Amendments do not really apply to me at this point in my life. As I live with my parents, and our country is not currently involved in a war on U.S. soil, I do not feel the need to worry about housing troops, so the Third Amendment does not concern me. Finally, since I am under the age limit to own a gun, the Second Amendment is equally irrelevant. Even though all of the amendments are important, Because of the importance of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment, I believe it plays the most significant role in my life as an American.

Support Local Journalism

Freedom of speech provides one of the most crucial forms of self-expression and can replace violence. We can easily see the effects of oppression in countries where violence occurs on a daily basis, and it makes sense. People want change, and without freedom to say or write what they want, violence sometimes seems like the only option. By protecting freedom of speech, our government allows everyone in the United States the opportunity to express their opinions in peaceful ways rather than resorting to violence.

Freedom of speech allows each of us to express opinions, persuade others, and ultimately change the world. As a female, I feel lucky to live in a county where I can show my face, go to school, get an education, and express my opinions on problems with which I disagree. I cannot imagine how frustrated I would feel if I could not change the reality of my life using words. When Malala Yousafzai spoke out, she was nearly killed by the Taliban, and this kind of oppression is the tragic reality of many women. Unlike oppressed women around the world, in the U.S., our words can create change without backlashing in the form of violence.

Simple, every-day tasks such as answering questions in school or coming to a solution in politics would be very difficult without protection from the First Amendment. Problems usually have more than a single right answer, yet if we were not allowed to express our opinions, one answer might be the only result to conflict. Sometimes the most meaningful solutions come from disagreements between people, and when they can finally see eye-to-eye, better answers to the problem are found. Without the First Amendment, our country may not have passed the other amendments. Laws are made of words and when only certain words are allowed, only some voices can be heard, and a limited number of people can speak, the solutions that result are just as restricted.

Unlike some rights to speech, the first amendment allows us to express ourselves during both good and bad times. In extreme wartime conditions, governments sometimes prohibit their citizens from showing any self-expression in the form music, dancing, singing, laughing, or even smiling, and yet we can do all of theses things and talk about them afterward without punishment. Though our opinions are not always positive and many times, when we express ourselves, we talk about something negative that needs to be changed, our words can change reality, and to me, the greatest freedom is to be myself and be able to make a change for others and myself through words instead of violence.

While all of the amendments to the Bill of Rights play an important role in our county, the First Amendment provides me with one of the most meaningful freedoms as a female student and citizen of the United States. Freedom of speech allows me to create change in non-violent ways, and express myself without worrying about the consequences of self-expression. For the freedom to express my views, make a difference, and have the same rights as everyone else in this country, I am immensely grateful.

Hiker in duress evacuated from mountainous terrain near Aspen

Jun 4, 2024

Snowmass Village considers funding for wildlife crossing studies along Highway 82

Aspen Journalism: Using less of the Colorado River takes a willing farmer and $45 million in federal funds

GasBuddy: Price per gallon rises statewide, locally

Jun 3, 2024

A Colorado Supreme Court ruling poked a hole in ski resorts’ liability protections. What’s next?

Independence Pass to open one day earlier than expected

May 30, 2024

Independence Pass will open one day earlier than expected, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT).

Aspen man arrested, charged following incident at St. Regis hotel

Jun 1, 2024

Mountain Mayhem: The class of 2024

May 31, 2024

What could a La Niña summer mean for Colorado?

May 29, 2024

Late season backcountry skiing near Aspen? Look out for these popular pitfalls

Jun 2, 2024

Readers around Aspen and Snowmass Village make the Aspen Times’ work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.

Watch CBS News

What was Trump convicted of? Details on the 34 counts and his guilty verdict

By Stefan Becket

Updated on: June 3, 2024 / 9:27 AM EDT / CBS News

Former President Donald Trump's conviction in New York stemmed from a $130,000 "hush money" payment his attorney Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the days before the 2016 election. Prosecutors said the deal was meant to keep voters in the dark about Daniels' allegation that she had sex with Trump years earlier, which he denies. 

But the actual charges that Trump faced were far less salacious, and dealt with the comparatively mundane paperwork that was generated when he reimbursed Cohen for the payment. 

Here's what to know about the charges Trump faced:

What was Trump convicted of?

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York. He pleaded not guilty when he was arraigned last year.

In 2017, Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, an executive at the Trump Organization, reached an agreement about how Cohen would be repaid for the $130,000 that he sent to Daniels in exchange for her silence. Weisselberg detailed the calculations in handwritten notes that were shown to the jury at trial. 

Cohen would receive $130,000 for the Daniels payment, plus $50,000 intended for a technology company that did unrelated work for Trump. That amount was doubled to account for taxes that Cohen would have to pay on the income. Weisselberg then tacked on an extra $60,000 as a bonus for Cohen, who was upset that his regular year-end award had been cut. The total worked out to $420,000.

Cohen would be paid in a series of monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017. The first check was for $70,000, covering two months. Cohen sent an invoice to the Trump Organization for each check, portraying the payment as his "retainer." Every time he was paid, a bookkeeper generated a record for the company's files, known as a voucher, with the description "legal expense." The first three payments were made from Trump's trust, while the remaining nine came from his personal account.

Each of the 34 charges against Trump corresponded to a check, invoice and voucher generated to reimburse Cohen. The prosecution laid out the charges in a chart that jurors saw several times during the trial:

Prosecutors said Trump knew the payments were to reimburse Cohen for the Daniels payment, not for his legal expenses.

The jury voted to convict on all 34 counts. As Trump looked on , the court's clerk asked the foreperson of the jury for the verdict.

"How say you to the first count of the indictment, charging Donald J. Trump with the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, guilty or not guilty?" the clerk asked.

"Guilty," the foreperson responded, repeating the answer 33 more times.

Why were the charges a felony?

Under New York law, falsification of business records is a crime when the records are altered with an intent to defraud. To be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records.

In Trump's case, prosecutors said that other crime was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," as Justice Juan Merchan explained in his instructions to the jury.

What exactly those "unlawful means" were in this case was up to the jury to decide. Prosecutors put forth three areas that they could consider: a violation of federal campaign finance laws, falsification of other business records or a violation of tax laws. 

Jurors did not need to agree on what the underlying "unlawful means" were. But they did have to unanimously conclude that Trump caused the business records to be falsified, and that he "did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." 

What was Trump's defense?

Trump's lawyers argued that the payments to Cohen were for his work as Trump's attorney, not reimbursements for the Daniels payment.

The defense argued that the descriptions on the invoices and records were accurate — Cohen held the title "personal attorney to the president" once Trump took office, and was being paid for his legal services under an unwritten retainer agreement. Therefore, their argument went, no business records were falsified.

They also focused much of their firepower on portraying Cohen as a liar , with the goal of discrediting his testimony. Cohen was the only witness who testified that Trump knew about the true purpose of the reimbursements, a crucial pillar of prosecutors' effort to show Trump's intent. 

Ultimately, the jurors rejected the defense's arguments and sided with prosecutors in finding Trump guilty.

When will Trump be sentenced?

Shortly after the verdict was handed down, Merchan, the judge, set Trump's sentencing date for July 11, just days before the start of the Republican National Convention.

Under New York law, each count of falsifying business records in the first degree carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison and a $5,000 fine. But Merchan has broad discretion when it comes to imposing a sentence. Most legal observers expect him to punish Trump with little or no time behind bars, based on factors like Trump's status as a first-time offender and his age. Merchan could instead rely on options like probation, home confinement or solely a fine. 

Trump has vowed to appeal the verdict, and any sentence could be delayed until that process plays out.

Stefan Becket is a managing editor of politics for CBSNews.com. Stefan has covered national politics for more than a decade and helps oversee a team covering the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, immigration and federal law enforcement.

More from CBS News

Trump asks to have gag order lifted in New York criminal trial

Some Black Americans find irony in Trump's reaction to guilty verdict

3 Trump allies charged in Wisconsin for 2020 fake elector scheme

Views of Trump trial unchanged following verdict — CBS News poll

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

How Trump’s Team Blew It

By Renato Mariotti

Mr. Mariotti, a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner in Chicago, is a former federal prosecutor.

The criminal trial of Donald Trump didn’t have to end this way.

The prosecution’s case had flaws that couldn’t be wallpapered over even with weeks of testimony, over 200 exhibits and a polished and persuasive presentation by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, and his team. If Mr. Trump’s lawyers had played their cards right, they most likely would have ended up with a hung jury or a misdemeanor conviction.

The defense lost a winnable case by adopting an ill-advised strategy that was right out of Mr. Trump’s playbook. For years, he denied everything and attacked anyone who dared to take him on. It worked — until this case.

I have practiced criminal law for over 20 years, and I have tried and won cases as both a federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. I’ve almost never seen the defense win without a compelling counternarrative. Jurors often want to side with prosecutors, who have the advantage of writing the indictment, marshaling the witnesses and telling the story.

The defense needs its own story, and in my experience, the side that tells the simpler story at trial usually wins.

Instead of telling a simple story, Mr. Trump’s defense was a haphazard cacophony of denials and personal attacks. That may work for a Trump rally or a segment on Fox News, but it doesn’t work in a courtroom. Perhaps Mr. Trump’s team was also pursuing a political or press strategy, but it certainly wasn’t a good legal strategy. The powerful defense available to Mr. Trump’s attorneys was lost amid all the clutter.

At the beginning of the trial, Mr. Trump’s team had a clear path to victory. He was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the cover-up of a $130,000 hush-money payment that was made to the porn star Stormy Daniels. Yet the only direct evidence of Mr. Trump’s knowledge was the testimony of Michael Cohen — who has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and charges of bank fraud, tax evasion and campaign finance violation — who hates Mr. Trump and makes money off his public commentary on Mr. Trump’s legal woes.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to see how this could be a powerful legal defense. The prosecution had to prove that Mr. Trump knew about and caused — or at least was an accomplice in creating — the false business records. But at the time the records were created, Mr. Trump was in the White House. The defense could argue that Mr. Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, who has pleaded guilty to lying under oath and tax fraud, came up with that scheme on their own. Mr. Trump, his lawyers could argue, was focused on his role as president.

Mr. Trump’s team did say something similar at various points in the trial, including during Todd Blanche’s roughly three-hour closing argument. The problem is that the defense made so many other points, and fought so many other things, that it failed to focus the jury on the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and instead tried to fight everything and everyone, even when it gained little by doing so.

Although the prosecution’s evidence of Mr. Trump’s personal approval of the falsification of business records was thin, the evidence for most of the other relevant facts was rock solid. Yet the defense destroyed its own credibility by denying the undeniable, as in its laughable claim that the large lump-sum payments to Mr. Cohen really were payments for legal services, including the amount that he embezzled from Mr. Trump.

The trial dragged on for weeks largely because of Mr. Trump’s “deny everything” approach. A savvy defense counsel would have stipulated that Mr. Trump had an intimate affair with Ms. Daniels. Instead, the defense forced the prosecution to prove that the affair occurred and proceeded to aggressively attack Ms. Daniels, whom some of the jury likely found sympathetic in her testimony. That attack gained no ground legally for the defense — little turned on whether Mr. Trump had a sexual encounter with her — but distracted from his actual defense.

Similarly, the cross-examination of Mr. Cohen dragged on for days because the defense sought to confront him with every lie it could identify, seemingly every misdeed he ever committed and every potential line of attack it could come up with.

Because the defense denied everything and attacked Mr. Cohen on every point, prosecutors were able to focus on the many points where Mr. Cohen’s testimony was corroborated by documents, phone records, text messages and a recording. If the defense had narrowly focused on the key points on which that testimony was not corroborated, it could have undermined the prosecution’s advantage.

It may be that a not-guilty verdict was always a long shot. But if the defense had been more effective, one of the two lawyers on the jury might have voted to acquit, all that is needed for a hung jury. Or perhaps the jury would have compromised and rendered a verdict that Mr. Trump committed only a misdemeanor, which most defense attorneys would view as a win, given the circumstances.

But Mr. Trump’s team went for broke, deciding not to seek a jury instruction that would have permitted jurors to find that Mr. Trump committed a misdemeanor rather than a felony. It’s unclear whether that decision to deny the jury an option that would have given the defense a win was an act of hubris or a refusal to compromise, but both are characteristics of Mr. Trump that don’t translate well into a criminal trial.

Mr. Trump’s team was a reflection of its client, always attacking and never backing down. That playbook has worked for Mr. Trump again and again. For this trial and in a Manhattan courtroom, the attitude and strategy backfired.

Renato Mariotti, a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner in Chicago, is a former federal prosecutor and a co-host with Asha Rangappa of the “It’s Complicated” podcast .

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .