Civil rights are the freedoms and rights that a person may have as a member of a community, state, or nation. Civil rights include freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion. Among others are the right to own property and to receive fair and equal treatment from government, other persons, and private groups.
In democratic countries, a person’s civil rights are protected by law and custom. The constitutions of many democracies have bills of rights that describe basic liberties and rights. Courts of law decide whether a person’s civil rights have been violated. The courts also determine the limits of civil rights, so that people do not use their freedoms to violate the rights of others.
In many undemocratic countries, the government claims to respect and guarantee civil rights. But in most of these countries, such claims differ greatly from the actual conditions. The constitutions of some undemocratic governments guarantee such basic rights as freedom of speech and of the press. In practice, however, the people are denied such rights.
Some people draw sharp distinctions between civil liberties and civil rights. These people distinguish between freedom from certain actions and freedom to be treated in certain ways. They regard civil liberties as guarantees that a person will enjoy freedom from government interference. They think of civil rights as guarantees that all people will have the freedom to be treated equally. In this article, the term civil rights refers to both civil liberties and civil rights.
Limits of civil rights
All civil rights have limits, even in democratic countries. For example, a person may be denied freedom of speech in a democracy if it can be shown that his or her speech might lead to the overthrow of the government. A person may not use civil rights to justify actions that might seriously harm the health, welfare, or safety of others. In 1919, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
In times of crisis,
government policies often restrict personal freedoms in the interest of national security. But in most cases, such policies are scaled back or ended once the crisis has passed. For instance, in 1798, as the United States prepared for an expected war with France, the U.S. Congress passed a series of laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. One of the acts authorized the president to imprison or deport citizens of enemy nations. Another enabled the government to fine or imprison people who encouraged resistance to federal laws or who criticized the government. However, the war with France did not occur. The acts expired, or were repealed or amended.
Violations of the rights of others.
A person may be denied a civil right if that right is used to violate other people’s rights. Freedom of expression, for example, does not permit a person to tell lies that ruin another person’s reputation. Property owners have the right to do what they choose with their property. However, this right may not allow a person legally to refuse to sell property to a person of a certain race or religion. This is because the property owner would be denying the other person equal freedom of choice.
Changing social and economic conditions
can also cause changes in the importance that people give certain rights. During the late 1800’s, for example, many people emphasized property rights over individual freedoms. But since the late 1930’s, most people have shown greater concern for personal freedoms and equality of opportunity.
Civil rights in the United States
The U.S. Constitution describes the basic civil rights of American citizens. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are usually regarded as the U.S. Bill of Rights. However, civil rights are also mentioned in the main body of the Constitution and in later amendments. Each state constitution also has a bill or declaration of rights. Since the mid-1950’s, the federal, state, and local governments have passed several civil rights laws. But the courts—especially the U.S. Supreme Court—have probably done the most to define civil rights. When Americans raise questions about the extent and limits of civil rights, they turn to the Supreme Court’s decisions for answers. The court often defines the limits of a right by balancing the right of the individual against the rights of society in general.
For a detailed description of the constitutional rights of Americans, see Constitution of the United States. For information on the Supreme Court’s part in protecting civil rights, see Supreme Court of the United States (Civil rights).
The First Amendment
is the basis of the democratic process in the United States. The First Amendment forbids Congress to pass laws restricting freedom of speech, of the press, of peaceful assembly, or of petition. Many people consider freedom of speech the most important freedom and the foundation of all other freedoms. The First Amendment also forbids Congress to pass laws establishing a state religion or restricting religious freedom. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment makes the guarantees of the 1st Amendment apply to the state governments.
Due process.
Many parts of the Constitution, congressional and state laws, and court decisions require the government to treat individuals fairly. These requirements reflect a basic principle in the American legal system called due process. The 5th and 14th amendments forbid the government to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property “without due process of law.”
Various statements in the Constitution guarantee due process. For example, the Constitution forbids the government to suspend the writ of habeas corpus except during an invasion or rebellion. This right protects citizens against arrest and detention without good reason. Neither Congress nor the states may pass bills of attainder. Such bills declare a person guilty of a crime and take away the person’s property and civil rights without a trial. The Constitution also prohibits ex post facto laws. Such laws make a particular act a crime and punish people who committed the act before it was a crime.
Due process of law also includes court procedures that protect individuals accused of wrongdoing. For example, a person may not be tried for a major federal crime unless a grand jury has first decided that enough evidence exists against the individual. Individuals accused of a crime also must be informed of their constitutional rights and of the charges against them. They may demand a jury trial, which must be held soon after the charges are filed. People on trial may cross-examine their accusers. They also may force witnesses to testify.
Other constitutional guarantees.
The Constitution also guarantees that accused individuals may not be tried twice for the same crime. They also may not be forced to testify against themselves. If they cannot afford a lawyer and want one, the government must provide one. People accused of crimes must not be required to pay excessive bail. In addition, those convicted of crimes must not be fined excessively nor made to suffer cruel or unusual punishment.
The Constitution also provides for the security of people and their property. The government may not conduct “unreasonable searches and seizures” of individuals or property. It may not take a person’s property without due process of law. If it takes private property for public use, it must pay the owner a fair price.
The Constitution forbids the states to pass laws interfering with contracts made between people or groups. Each state must recognize the legislative acts, public records, and court decisions of other states. A state must extend its legal protections to the citizens of any other state while they are within its jurisdiction.
Protecting the rights of minorities.
The United States has many minority groups. These minorities include African Americans, Jews, Asian Americans, European immigrants, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, gay people, and people with disabilities. Members of these groups often have not had an equal chance for economic, political, or social advancement. Members of some minorities have been denied the right to vote. Many persons have been discriminated against in housing, education, and employment. They have also been denied equal access to restaurants, hotels, and other public accommodations and facilities. A main goal has been to end such discrimination and guarantee equal rights and opportunities for all people. 
The struggle for the rights of African Americans.
African Americans, who make up one of the largest minority groups in the United States, have been denied their full civil rights more than any other minority group. 
African Americans made significant gains in their struggle for equal rights during Reconstruction, the 12-year period after the American Civil War (1861-1865). The 13th Amendment, adopted in 1865, abolished slavery in the United States. In 1868, the 14th Amendment made the formerly enslaved people citizens. It also provided that the states must grant all people within their jurisdiction “equal protection of the laws.” The 15th Amendment, which became law in 1870, prohibited the states from denying people the right to vote because of their race. During Reconstruction, Congress passed several laws to protect the civil rights of Black Americans. See Reconstruction.
During the late 1870’s, white Americans increasingly disregarded the newly won rights of Black Americans. The government itself contributed greatly to denying Black citizens their rights. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled that congressional acts to prevent racial discrimination by private individuals were unconstitutional. In 1896, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana law requiring separate but equal accommodations for Black and white passengers in railroad cars. For over 50 years, many Southern states used the “separate but equal” rule established in this case to segregate the races in public schools, and in transportation, recreation, and such public establishments as hotels and restaurants. Many states also used literacy tests, poll taxes, and other means to deprive Black citizens of their voting rights. Loading the player...
Historical commentary and footage of the Selma civil rights march
Since the 1930’s, African Americans have had fairer hearings on civil rights cases in the federal courts. The high point came in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. In time, this decision broke down the “separate but equal” principle.
In 1955, the Supreme Court ordered that public school desegregation be carried out “with all deliberate speed.” But many Southern school districts continued to have segregated schools. In 1969, the court departed from its “all deliberate speed” doctrine and ordered the integration of all school systems “at once.” By the 1980’s, public schools in the South were more integrated than those in many Northern and Western states. 
In 1957, Congress passed the first federal civil rights law since Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 set up the Commission on Civil Rights to investigate charges of denial of civil rights. It also created the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice to enforce federal civil rights laws and regulations.
During the 1960’s, African Americans’ voting rights received increased protection. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 provided for the appointment of referees to help Black citizens register to vote. The 24th Amendment, adopted in 1964, barred poll taxes in federal elections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed literacy tests in many Southern states. A 1970 law made literacy tests illegal in all the states. In 1966, the Supreme Court prohibited poll taxes in state and local elections. 
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the strongest civil rights bills in U.S. history. It ordered restaurants, hotels, and other businesses that serve the general public to serve all people without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin. It also barred discrimination by employers and unions, and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce fair employment practices. In addition, the act provided for a cutoff of federal funds from any program or activity that allowed racial discrimination. 
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 aimed chiefly at ending discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. Also in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the power to enforce housing-discrimination laws even in cases involving only private individuals. Before the court’s ruling, such laws had been applied only to cases that involved government agencies.
The struggle for women’s rights
in the United States at first concentrated on gaining the right to vote. A proposed constitutional amendment granting women the vote was introduced in every session of Congress from 1878 to 1919. In 1920, it finally became law as the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
During the mid-1900’s, women gained increased protection against discrimination. In the 1940’s, the U.S. government established a policy of equal pay for equal work. Under this policy, the government forbade businesses with federal contracts to pay a woman less than a man for the same job. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited job discrimination on the basis of sex. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex by schools and colleges receiving federal funds.
Major changes in the field of civil rights
occurred during the 1970’s. Earlier civil rights efforts had involved lawsuits and other attempts to protect individual rights. In the 1970’s, the emphasis shifted from individual rights to group rights.
The federal government began to enact laws designed to assure rights for groups that formerly had suffered discrimination. For example, the government began a program of affirmative action. Affirmative action consists of efforts to counteract past discrimination by giving special help to disadvantaged groups. Typical measures included recruiting drives among women and minority groups, and special training for minority workers. The government required such plans to be set up by businesses that had government contracts, by other employers, and by schools receiving federal funds.
Efforts to help groups that had suffered discrimination raised a number of new civil rights issues. Many people felt the government violated the principle of equality under the law by giving preference to certain groups at the expense of others. Some white men complained of reverse discrimination, saying they were treated unfairly because of their race and sex. Other individuals believed such efforts were necessary to help the disadvantaged overcome past discrimination and eventually compete on an equal basis with white males.
In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal program requiring preference based on a person’s race is unconstitutional unless the preference is designed to make up for specific instances of past discrimination. This meant that affirmative action could no longer be used to counteract racial discrimination by society as a whole. In 1989, the court had made a similar decision regarding state and local programs. In 2003, the court ruled that, within certain limits, colleges and universities could use race as a factor in selecting students for admission.
In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act to protect people with disabilities from discrimination by private employers. The law also requires that public buildings and mass transportation systems be accessible to people with disabilities. In addition, the act orders telephone companies to provide telephone relay services that enable people with speech or hearing disorders to make and receive calls. 
In the mid-1900’s, many gay rights organizations protested against police harassment, used lawsuits to defend gay rights, and became active in political parties. By the late 1900’s, gay rights activists had created new organizations and developed new political strategies. The movement came to be called the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights movement. Many activists campaigned for the legal right of same-sex couples to marry, and for laws to protect gay individuals from discrimination.
Many opponents of LGBTQ rights have questioned whether gay and transgender people have a legitimate claim to certain legal protections. Some opponents believe that homosexuality and gender dysphoria (a feeling that one was born with the wrong sex) are not characteristics present at birth, such as race or ethnicity, but rather personal choices. Thus, they claim that gay and transgender people want “special rights” rather than civil rights.
In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that states could outlaw homosexual conduct. But the court reversed that decision in 2003, when it ruled that a Texas ban on gay sex was unconstitutional. In 1996, the court struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that forbade laws protecting gay people from discrimination.
The war on terrorism.
The U.S. government introduced a number of new policies following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon Building near Washington, D.C. The government sought to increase its ability to intercept communication to and from terrorist suspects, to investigate and detain suspected terrorists. It also sought to use immigration laws to exclude or deport individuals with links to terrorism. However, many civil rights activists argued that the policies threatened the rights of all Americans.
For instance, the USA PATRIOT Act, passed in October 2001, gave law enforcement the power to detain for seven days—or, in some cases, indefinitely—any noncitizen suspected of being a risk to national security. The act also granted authorities greater freedom to conduct searches, in some cases while delaying notice to the subject of the search. Many people charged that the USA PATRIOT Act and other policies threatened individuals’ privacy and civil rights.
Civil rights in other countries
Civil rights have long been protected in the constitutional democracies of Western Europe. These nations include France, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries. Personal liberties are also secure in other democracies, such as Australia and New Zealand. Canada has many civil rights laws similar to those in the United States. In 1960, Canada’s Parliament passed an act establishing the Canadian Bill of Rights. An expanded version of the bill, called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, became part of Canada’s constitution in 1982.
Many nations of Africa and Asia have adopted constitutions that guarantee basic civil rights. But in many of these countries, such factors as unstable governments and longstanding conflicts between ethnic or religious groups have often led to political arrests, censorship, and other denials of civil rights.
As in the United States, civil rights problems in many countries involve assuring equal rights for members of minority groups. For instance, French Canadians of the province of Quebec have long struggled against what they consider discrimination by Canada’s English-speaking majority. Many French Canadians claim they have been denied jobs because they speak French rather than English.
Most undemocratic governments claim to protect civil rights. But in practice, they grant civil rights only when they find it politically convenient to do so. China’s Constitution, for example, guarantees the right to vote and assures freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly. But China’s Communist Party controls the government, and the people may be punished if they publicly criticize the party. The government controls the newspapers and other forms of communication.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It states that all people are born free and are equal in dignity and rights. Many experts in international law believe that the declaration lacks legal authority, but most agree that it has high moral authority.
Development of civil rights
Natural law.
The idea that people have certain rights that cannot be taken away probably began thousands of years ago with the theory of natural law. This theory states that a natural order exists in the universe because all things are created by nature, or God. Everything has its own qualities and is subject to the rules of nature to achieve its full potential. According to this theory, anything that detracts from a person’s human qualities, or prevents their full achievement, violates natural law.
The ancient Greek philosophers and the writers of the Jewish Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by Christians) stressed that there is a higher law than human law. The Roman philosopher Cicero, who lived from 106 to 43 B.C., insisted that this higher (natural) law is universal and can be discovered through human reason. This idea led to the belief that governmental power has limits and that people and governments are bound by natural law.
Some of the most historic English legal documents are based on natural law. The earliest and most famous was Magna Carta, which the king approved against his will in 1215. The document placed the king himself under the law. In 1628, the English Parliament drew up a Petition of Right. The petition claimed that certain actions of the king, such as levying taxes without the consent of Parliament, were unconstitutional. 
Natural rights.
Natural law had always stressed the duties over the rights of government and individuals. But in the late 1600’s, natural law began to emphasize natural rights. This change was brought about largely by the writings of the English philosopher John Locke.
Locke argued that governmental authority depends on the people’s consent. According to Locke, people originally lived in a state of nature with no restrictions on their freedom. Then they came to realize that confusion would result if each person enforced his or her own rights. People agreed to live under a common government. However, they did not agree to surrender their “rights of nature” to the government. Instead, they expected the government to protect these rights, especially the rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke’s ideas of limited government and natural rights became part of the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), and the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791).
Today, many scholars reject the natural law and natural rights theories. They believe that all laws—including those guaranteeing civil rights—are simply devices that people find convenient or useful at a particular time. Nevertheless, nearly all civil rights laws have resulted from the theories of natural law and natural rights.
