As we all know, there are many misinterpretations regarding the original reasons some of the amendments were created. For us living in the modern day, it can be difficult to align the changes of the past with modern day issues, although it is done on a daily basis. Many times when an amendment is brought up, it may be used incorrectly regarding the original intent. With this, we will take a look at the first amendment and what the original intentions were, and we will also look into the intentions of the right to privacy and criminal rights.

Within the first amendment, the most known and widely used right is stated, the freedom of speech. While under common law, people would have to be careful of what they say or write about the government or political parties, as they would be charged with a seditious crime regardless of its truth or relevance. Freedom of speech and of the press was created to allow individuals to speak freely or publish without license their grievances against the conduct of public officials or policies thereof. Although the roots remain the same, the modern day understanding has come with some confusion. In the current times, many still believe in the right to free speech, however; continue to debate what should be covered. Many believe that the burning of the flag or the advertisement of pornography or nude dancing should not be allowed and should be punishable. With time on its side, the first amendment has been scrutinized severely. Thus creating something that is even more confusing than before. With cases like Burstyn v. Wilson in 1952 and the case of the United States v. O’Brien in 1968, the understanding has become clearer on what is accepted and what is not. Even though this is so, in the modern day, it is more about how it is perceived according to today’s standards.

The freedom of religion is another major right that is in the first amendment that some of us may take for granted. Without this right, religious minorities were susceptible to being persecuted, and a national religion could be created by the government. This would go against everything America was founded on. With this being said it was included in the first amendment that individuals would have the freedom to religion. This is practiced currently on a daily basis, whether it is recognized or not. As we each have our beliefs that we believe in, we are allowed to practice these beliefs without punishment by law. Although this does not allow religious practices to be pressured on us from a higher source such as schools. This was practiced when a Jewish student, Deborah Weisman, sued a public school in Rhode Island over a Christian graduation prayer in 1986. With modern times circulating around religion, and having those willing to die for what they believe, it is hard to allow extremist to practice their beliefs.

Although there is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has taken it in their hands to make controversial decisions on the main issues. Some of which are an individual’s reproductive rights, abortion rights, and gay rights. Up until the Griswold v. Connecticut case in 1965, the right to privacy was not recognized. This case revolved around the state attempting to ban the use of contraceptives. The final opinion and ruling were that of it would be declared unconstitutional under the “zones of privacy.” These rights were made of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. With ongoing battles over abortion and gay rights, the current situation with the privacy rights is probably at its most heated moments known to history. Although many of Americans have come to the acceptance of same- sex marriage, many still believe it is wrong along with abortion. This is something that will continuously be debated and changed, knowing everyone cannot be satisfied.

While many of us are unfamiliar with the term criminal’s rights, we may be more familiar with Miranda Rights. These rights were developed to protect individuals from incriminating themselves and to allow them to have their attorney present while being questioned. This may be viewed differently by some as it is very contradicting. Why should criminals have a right not to talk to a peace officer? Is this considered to slow down the process of the peace officers investigation? This debate may continue to be ongoing. However in all actuality, the Miranda Rights are developed to give meaning to the Fifth Amendment’s Self-incrimination Clause. This states that no person should be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. There have been many cases throughout history that will help an individual argue either side of the Miranda Rights. However, each side continues to prove the other wrong with the correct practice of the rights.