The government restricts our rights only in certain scenarios. These are primarily cases where the exercise of the right causes harm to others. It can also include cases where the law is almost impossible to protect, such as our right to privacy in public spaces. With respect to restrictions on contributions, the Court recognized in Buckley that political contributions “serve to bind a person to a candidate” and “allow like-minded persons to pool their resources in pursuit of common policy objectives.” Contribution limits therefore limit “an important means of cooperation with an applicant or committee”. 866 However, there may be significant interference with protected rights of political association “where the State demonstrates a sufficiently substantial interest and uses narrowly defined means to avoid unnecessary restrictions on freedom of association”. 867 While endorsing an earlier assertion that “intelligence gathering is not without the protection of the First Amendment,”1014 she denied that the First Amendment imposed a positive obligation on the government to the press. “The First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from interfering in any way with freedom of the press. However, the Constitution does not require the government to grant the press special access to information not generally shared by members of the public. 1015 Pell and Saxbe have not explained whether the “equal access” rule applies only in cases where public access exists, so that a different rule may follow for the press in the event of a general refusal of access; Nor did they purport to define the rules of equal access. Houchins v. KQED,1016, in which a broadcaster sued for access to a prison from which the public and the press were excluded and about which prison conditions were highly controversial. After taking legal action, the prison administrator allowed limited public guided tours. Visits were open to the press, but cameras and recording equipment were not allowed, there was no way to talk to detainees, and visits did not include the high-security area around which much of the controversy revolved.

The Supreme Court overturned the injunction obtained by the lower courts, with the majority reaffirming that “neither the First Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment prescribes a right of access to government information or sources of information under government control. Until the political branches decide otherwise, as they are free to do, the media has no special right of access to the Alameda County Jail, which is different from what is generally granted to the public. 1017 Stewart J.A., whose vote was necessary to decide the case, agreed with the right to equality, but would have authorized a narrower order to protect the right of the press to use cameras and recorders to expand public access to information.1018 Thus, any issue of special access to the press appears to be resolved by the decision; However, the questions raised above remain: can anyone be excluded from access, and if access is granted, does the Constitution require a limitation on the discretion of prison administrators?1019 The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms. The government and individuals often discuss this freedom because the right to bear arms can easily endanger others. In the case of a mass shooting, for example, this change compromised the safety of others. In such cases, the right to bear arms is restricted on grounds of public security. We can carry weapons, but not with the intention of harming others. • Access to information is an important aspect of the right to free exchange of ideas and information. Today, it is important that this right be guaranteed to children, even if it is in a way that protects them from ideas and information that could have a shameful effect on their psychological development. New communication tools, the disappearance of taboos and the dissemination of information that makes the reality and atrocities of the world visible to all lead young people to behave in an extreme way.

It is therefore necessary to limit and filter this information and to offer young people this type of information that is both entertaining and useful for their development. In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC,892 the court held that Buckley v. Valeo “is the authority for government restrictions on contributions to the state`s political candidates,” but that state borders “need not be tied to the Buckley dollar.” 893 In Nixon, the Court justified the limitation of donations on the same grounds as in Buckley: “the prevention of corruption and its emergence resulting from generous electoral contributions”. 894 Moreover, Nixon “did not make a narrow call for a further definition of the state`s burden of proof” to justify contribution limits, since “there is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will lead to the actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to question the existence of corresponding distrust among the electorate.” 895 With respect to the amount of the contribution limits, Missouri`s fluctuated with the Consumer Price Index and ranged from $275 to $1,075 at the time the action was introduced, depending on the state office or the size of the district. The court upheld these limitations, writing that in Buckley it had “rejected the contention that $1,000 or some other amount was a constitutional minimum below which the legislature could not regulate.” 896 On the contrary, the relevant question was “whether the limitation of contributions was so radical that it rendered the political association ineffective, reduced the sound of a candidate`s voice below the level of publicity and rendered the contributions meaningless”. For example, 897 government employees can be fired for saying things that affect employer effectiveness.