The First Amendment and its Impact on the Media Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or restrict 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 United States Constitution is one of the most important pieces of writing in our short history. The First Amendment defined and shaped our country into what it is today. The amendment has been consistently contested and ratified through literature, court cases, and our media. Indeed, the media is guided by the First Amendment. Without it, we citizens would not be able to see or hear what we want, when we want it. As you can see, the First Amendment is not just a pass to say and do whatever you want, but, on the contrary, a great limiter on certain types of speech and behavior. This duality of the amendment is what makes it so special. The duality is particularly evident in the media field. The media is constantly challenged by the First Amendment on the following topics: libel suits, obscenity and online sex, and the right to free speech. These are the issues that are constantly changing and redefining our media today. Defamation, in general, is a false statement about an individual that can taint his or her reputation. There are four essential elements for starting a defamation action. It must be a false and defamatory statement about another and a non-privileged publication of the statement to a third party. If the defamatory topic is of public interest, there must be at least negligence on the part of the publisher and damage to reputation... half the paper... freeing the ideas of a few. Nowadays, radical ideas are increasingly presented through traditional media. These ideas, unlike in the past, are protected by the First Amendment. Now, people have the freedom to express themselves freely on a variety of forms of media without worrying about government rules, for the most part. Works Cited Hinckley, David. “DC's Baffling Decency Commission.” Daily News (New York). April 12, 2001. 45http://www.ssbb.com/basic.htmlMiller v. California. 413 US 15 (1973) Argued January 18-19, 1972. Reargued November 7, 1972. Decided June 21, 1973New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 376 US 254 (1964) Argued January 6, 1964. Decided March 9, 1964. Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 000 US 96-511 (1997) Argued March 19, 1997. Decision June 26, 1997