Time And Place Restrictions On Free Speech
The Constitution allows regulation of free speech when the imposed restrictions are content neutral, serve a significant government interest, and there are plenty of alternative methods for communicating the restricted views. Time and place restrictions have been used to ban picketing in front of abortion clinics, to ban nude dance clubs and adult book stores in school zones, and other similar restrictions. Protesters have been a fixture at political gatherings since political parties were invented. The government is permitted to confine protesters to so called free speech zones to protect both attendees and protesters from a violent confrontation.
Prior restraint is another type of time and place restriction on free speech. While the courts are very reluctant to allow prior restraint restrictions, there are a few exceptions. For example: the government can prohibit a newspaper from publishing the expected departure date and location of troop ships enroute to a battle zone.
What Things Are Protected By Freedom Of Speech
What does protected by free speech mean?
the freedom of speechabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances. The First Amendment restrains only the government.
Can you be fired for freedom of speech?
If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for exercising free speech by the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that when you exercise your right to free speech, your government employer cannot retaliate against you with negative employment action.
Freedom Of Speech Includes The Right:
- Not to speak .West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 .
- Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war .Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 .
- To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 .
- To contribute money to political campaigns.Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 .
- To advertise commercial products and professional services .Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 .
- To engage in symbolic speech, .Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 .
Also Check: Sign Language For Hearing Impaired
Speech Owned By Others
Another class of permissible restrictions on speech is based on intellectual property rights. Both copyrights and trade secrets fall under this exception. The Supreme Court first upheld this in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises , where copyright law was defended against a First Amendment free speech challenge. Also, broadcasting rights to air television and radio shows are not an infringement of free speech rights. The Court has upheld such restrictions as an incentive for artists in the “speech marketplace”.
Commercial speech occupies a unique role as a free speech exception. While there is no complete exception, legal advocates recognize it as having “diminished protection”. For example, false advertising can be punished and misleading advertising may be prohibited.
Commercial advertising may be restricted in ways that other speech can’t if a substantial governmental interest is advanced, and such restriction supports that interest as well as not being overly broad.
This doctrine of limited protection for advertisements is due to a balancing inherent in the policy explanations for the rule, namely that other types of speech are much more important. In J.C. Penney Corporation vs Cynthia Spann, Cynthia Spann argued that J.C. Penney used false advertising on their sales. Spann won the case.
Wrestling With Sedition And Seditious Speech
In general, sedition is defined as trying to overthrow the government with intent and means to bring it about the Supreme Court, however, has been divided over what constitutes intent and means.
In general, the government has been less tolerant of perceived sedition in times of war than in peace. The first federal attempt to censor seditious speech occurred with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 under President John Adams.
These acts made it a federal crime to speak, write, or print criticisms of the government that were false, scandalous, or malicious. Thomas Jefferson compared the acts to witch hunts and pardoned those convicted under the statues when he succeeded Adams.
Don’t Miss: Google Text To Speech Online
Laws Attempting To Reduce Anti
During World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Court spent years dealing with the aftermath.
In 1919 in Schenck, the government charged that encouraging draftees not to report for duty in World War I constituted sedition. In this case, the court held that Schencks actions were, indeed, seditious because, in the words of Justice Holmes, they constituted a clear and present danger of a substantive evil, defined as attempting to overthrow the government, inciting riots, and destruction of life and property.
In the 1940s and 1950s, World War II and the rise of communism produced new limits on speech, and McCarthyism destroyed the lives of scores of law-abiding suspected communists.
The Smith Act of 1940 and the Internal Security Act of 1950, also known as the McCarran Act, attempted to stamp out communism in the country by establishing harsh sentences for advocating the use of violence to overthrow the government and making the Communist Party of the United States illegal.
The George W. Bush administration and the courts have battled over the issues of warrantless wiretaps, military tribunals, and suspension of various rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate acceptable conditions for holding prisoners of war.
Freedom Of Speech Exclusions Explained
Of course, there are some logical situations where you can assume certain types of speech are not protected, but with the ability to transfer information at the snap of your finger, the rules have become more unclear.
Not only are there grey areas with the Freedom of Speech, but also with the rise of technology theres a lack of understanding. Usually, when you have a question, you can get an answer pretty quickly on Google or the G2 Learning Hub. But when it comes to the law, words get long and fancy, and people begin to explain everything using lawyer speak.
So Im here to clearly explain what is not protected by the First Amendment and give examples so that you can avoid these mistakes in your public relations career.
Also Check: Read Out Loud Text To Speech
What Are Examples Of Protected Speech
Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on “flag desecration.” Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances. Government can limit some protected speech by imposing “time, place and manner” restrictions.
Protected Speech In The Public Sector
Public employees do enjoy First Amendment protection for things they say at work. Generally, for speech to be protected, the public employee must be speaking as a private person on a matter of public concern. But the analysis doesnt end there. The employees interest in speaking out must outweigh the governments interest in limiting the employees speech.
For example, a public school teacher writing a letter to a newspaper criticizing the school boards handling of finances was held by the Supreme Court to be protected free speech. The teachers act of writing the letter did not involve school-related duties and the boards handling of finances was a matter of public importance.
The First Amendment does not apply to private employers, but this doesnt mean that the employers power to limit speech is boundless.
Court decisions, however, have not been as favorable to public employees when the speech occurs pursuant to the employees official duties. The idea is that the government should be able to exercise some control over employees who act in their official capacity. Thus, the First Amendment did not protect a state police officer who was disciplined for making complaints about his supervisors during a work meeting. According to the court, the officer was acting in his official capacity, and not as a private citizen, when he alleged misconduct during a regular scheduled meeting designed to exchange information about investigations.
Also Check: Detect Language To English Translation
Expressive And Symbolic Speech
Certain forms of speech are protected from censure by governments. For instance, the First Amendment protects pure speech, defined as that which is merely expressive, descriptive, or assertive. The Court has held that the government may not suppress speech simply because it thinks it is offensive. Even presidents are not immune from being criticized and ridiculed.
Less clearly defined are those forms of speech referred to as speech plus, that is, speech that carries an additional connotation. This includes symbolic speech, in which meanings are conveyed without words.
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District , the Court upheld the right of middle and high school students to wear black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
One of the most controversial examples of symbolic speech has produced a series of flag desecration cases, including Spence v. Washington , Texas v. Johnson , and United States v. Eichman .
Despite repeated attempts by Congress to make it illegal to burn or deface the flag, the Court has held that such actions are protected. Writing for the 5-4 majority in Texas v. Johnson, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated, We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.
When speech turns into other forms of action, constitutional protections are less certain.
When Words Incite Breach Of Peace
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , the Supreme Court defined fighting words as those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Racial epithets and ethnic derisions have traditionally been unprotected under the umbrella of fighting words.
Since the backlash against so-called political correctness, however, liberals and conservatives have fought over what derogatory words may be censored and which are protected by the First Amendment.
Don’t Miss: What Languages Are Spoken In The Philippines
Hate Speech Versus Freedom Of Speech
The need to preserve freedom of expression from censorship by States or private corporations is often invoked to counter efforts to regulate hateful expression, in particular online.
Freedom of opinion and expression are, indeed, cornerstones of human rights and pillars of free and democratic societies. These freedoms support other fundamental rights, such as to peaceful assembly, to participate in public affairs, and to freedom of religion. It is undeniable that digital media, including social media, have bolstered the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Therefore, legislative efforts to regulate free expression unsurprisingly raise concerns that attempts to curb hate speech may silence dissent and opposition.
Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, May 2019
Obscenity Is Not Protected By The First Amendment
whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Read Also: What Language Was The Nt Written In
Why Should We Believe In A Free Press
Free speech and a free press together allow people to obtain information from a wide range of sources that are not dictated or restricted by the government, so that they can make decisions, develop opinions, and communicate their views to the government .
Why is a free press Important?
A free press informs voters and strengthens democracy Being informed ensures people understand the issues at hand and what policies and politicians best represent them. The press is the body that informs by analyzing information, encouraging discussion, and fact-checking.
Private Actors Private Property Private Companies
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment only prohibits the US Congress from doing so. Starting with the 1925 U.S. Supreme Court decision Gitlow v. New York, this prohibition has been incorporated to apply to state and local governments as well, based on the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A major issue in freedom of speech jurisprudence has been whether the First Amendment should be interpreted to merely run against these state actors, or whether it can run against private actors as well. Specifically, the issue is whether private landowners should be permitted to use the machinery of government to exclude others from engaging in free speech on their property . The right of freedom of speech within private shopping centers owned by others has been vigorously litigated under both the federal and state Constitutions, most notably in the cases Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner and Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins .
Read Also: Speech-language Pathology Assistant Certificate Program Online
When Isnt Speech Protected
Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.
Forms of speech that arent protected include:
- Plagiarism of copyrighted material
Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes arent protected under the First Amendment, either.
The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I. The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.
Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the clear and present danger standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.
American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.
Presented By The John Seigenthaler Chair Of Excellence In First Amendment Studies
Pam Stener, pictured here with her husband Doug, is the author of a college paper that led to the drafting of the Stolen Valor Act, aimed at curbing false claims of military valor. Doug exposes phony medal winners. The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, refusing to expand the limited number of categories where restrictions are permitted on the content of speech. False speech is not automatically unprotected by the First Amendment.
Because the First Amendment is designed to further the pursuit of truth, it may not protect individuals who engage in slander or libel, especially those who display actual malice by knowingly publishing false information or publishing information with reckless disregard for the truth.
Don’t Miss: Parts Of The Speech Worksheets
Lying In Many Circumstances Is Not Protected Speech
Lying under oath is perjury, a criminal offense. It is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Lying to investigators, charged by a government agency to investigate a crime, is also a criminal offense without Constitutional protection. We have all read about financiers or businessmen going to prison for lying to federal investigators. Martha Stewart is an example most people remember. She went to prison for lying about her stock trading during a federal investigation. Dishonest or bogus advertising can also lead to prosecution. Although deceptive advertising is a pervasive problem in our society, if you can pin down the perpetrator, it can be prosecuted as a crime.
On the other hand, politicians and other public figures have considerable leeway in bending the truth to suit their own interests. Most of us recognize political rhetoric for what it is, a pack of lies designed to promote the candidates agenda. You may not like it, but it is protected speech under the law.
Does Freedom Of Speech Protect You From Government
The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers.
Why freedom of press is important?
What is the importance of freedom of press? Protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a free press helps maintain the balance of power in government. Numerous journalists worldwide have been killed while working to fulfill their essential role in free and open societies.
Recommended Reading: Origins Of The Portuguese Language
Determining Whether Something Is Obscene
In its early history, the Supreme Court left it to the states to determine whether materials were obscene.
Acting on its decision in Gitlow v. New York to apply the First Amendment to limit state action, the Warren Court subsequently began dealing with these issues in the 1950s on a case-by-case basis and spent hours examining material to determine obscenity.
In Miller v. California , the Burger Court finally adopted a test that elaborated on the standards established in Roth v. United States . Miller defines obscenity by outlining three conditions for jurors to consider:
- whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest
- whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law and
- whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Proposals to censor music date back to Platos Republic. In the 1970s, some individuals thought anti-war songs should be censored. In the 1980s, the emphasis shifted to prohibiting sexual and violent lyrics. The Federal Communications Commission also sought to fine radio stations for the broadcast of indecent speech. In general, rap and hard-core rock-n-roll have faced more censorship than other types of music. Caution must be used in this area to distinguish between governmental censorship and private censorship.