September 17, 2026
Welcome to the 1st Amendment Journal: A Full and Free Discussion of Ideas. This online journal is sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire’s Menard Center for Constitutional Studies (MCCS). Established in 2016, the mission of the non-partisan MCCS is to promote research, education, and community outreach on matters related to the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. Although the MCCS engages in activities that relate to all aspects of the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions, we have long had a focus on First Amendment rights.
The text of the First Amendment protects five rights: the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and the right to petition. Over the years, Supreme Court cases have held that other, unenumerated rights are implicated by the First Amendment, including the freedom of association, academic freedom, and the right to receive information.
The 1st Amendment Journal: A Full and Free Discussion of Ideas is designed to be a place where, in the spirit of the First Amendment, different perspectives about these rights can be debated in a scholarly setting. We invite anyone in the academic community—from faculty to staff to students—who has written a short essay (1,000 words maximum) to submit it for possible publication here. Essays should be rigorous and relevant to the First Amendment. The leadership of the MCCS will maintain editorial control over the journal.
Finally, an explanation is in order regarding the subtitle of the journal, “a full and free discussion of ideas.” The phrase derives from Justice William Douglas’s dissent in Dennis v. United States (1951). The case involved convictions under the federal Smith Act, a peacetime anti-sedition law. In Dennis, the Supreme Court upheld those convictions by a 6-2 vote, with Chief Justice Fred Vinson’s opinion of the Court reasoning that “the societal value of speech must, on occasion, be subordinated to other values and considerations.”[1] Chief Justice Vinson’s opinion went on to announce the following test for when advocacy will be outside of First Amendment protection: “In each case (courts) must ask whether the gravity of the ‘evil,’ discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.”[2]
The Dennis decision was over the dissents of Justice Douglas and Justice Hugo Black. Both dissenters noted how the Court majority offered a rather narrow interpretation of what the First Amendment protects. In two paragraphs in his Dennis dissent, Justice Douglas used the phrase “full and free discussion” four times to explain why he believed these prosecutions for advocacy of ideas violated the First Amendment:
Free speech has occupied an exalted position because of the high service it has given our society. Its protection is essential to the very existence of a democracy. The airing of ideas releases pressures which otherwise might become destructive. When ideas compete in the market for acceptance, full and free discussion exposes the false, and they gain few adherents. Full and free discussion even of ideas we hate encourages the testing of our own prejudices and preconceptions. Full and free discussion keeps a society from becoming stagnant and unprepared for the stresses and strains that work to tear all civilizations apart.
Full and free discussion has indeed been the first article of our faith. We have founded our political system on it. It has been the safeguard of every religious, political, philosophical, economic, and racial group amongst us. We have counted on it to keep us from embracing what is cheap and false; we have trusted the common sense of our people to choose the doctrine true to our genius and to reject the rest. This has been the one single outstanding tenet that has made our institutions the symbol of freedom and equality. We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress a despised minority than to let them vent their spleen. We have above all else feared the political censor. We have wanted a land where our people can be exposed to all the diverse creeds and cultures of the world.[3]
Douglas’s Dennis dissent articulates the importance of protecting a “full and free discussion” of ideas, both for society in general and representative government in particular. The paragraphs quoted above also connect the freedom of speech to other First Amendment rights, particularly the freedom of religion.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court abandoned Dennis’s narrow test for free speech for the much more protective imminent lawless action test that the Court has maintained to this day: “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”[4] Douglas, who was still serving on the Court, concurred in Brandenburg, concluding his opinion with the following line: “government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.”[5]
Douglas’s interpretation of the First Amendment protecting a “full and free discussion” of ideas eventually prevailed on the Court. Regardless of whether one agrees with the Supreme Court’s rulings in either Dennis or Brandenburg, for our purposes what is important is that we practice adherence to First Amendment values, including engaging in a “full and free discussion” of all ideas. This journal was founded with that spirit in mind. We hope you look forward to reading it.
[1] Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 503 (1951).
[2] Dennis, 341 U.S. at 510.
[3] Dennis, 341 U.S. at 584-85 (Douglas, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).
[4] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).
[5] Brandenburg, 395 U.S. at 457 (Douglas, J., dissenting).