Posted on 11/04/2025 8:51:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
What are the limits on free speech in America? What aren’t you allowed to say? And who is allowed to restrict speech?
Fact: This famous phrase is derived from the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, but the full phrase is that “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the author, was stating here that certain kinds of false factual claims are punishable, at least when they have a tendency to lead to immediate physical harm.
But beyond this, the actual holding of that case has been sharply limited by later precedents. Schenck v. United States introduced the “clear and present danger” test for when speech loses its constitutional protection, and applied that test to uphold restrictions on anti-draft speech during wartime, on the theory that speech had a tendency to cause draft evasion. But under the more recent Brandenburg v. Ohio precedent (1969), speech may be punished as incitement only if the speaker (1) intends to cause (2) imminent lawless action and the action is (3) likely to happen.
Fact: There is no First Amendment exception for “hate speech” (and thus not even a legal definition of “hate speech” under American law). The First Amendment protects all sorts of viewpoints: hateful, loving, or otherwise. To be sure, some speech, such as true threats of violence, can be restricted—but not because it has a supposedly hateful viewpoint. Anti-racist threats of violence are just as punishable as racist threats of violence, for instance.
Fact: Even “knowing lies” about the government, history, science, and so on are generally constitutionally protected; innocent mistakes are even more clearly protected. Some particular kinds of falsehoods are punishable: Classic examples of unprotected speech are defamation (false statements that damage someone’s reputation), fraud (lying to get money or other property), perjury (lying under oath), and false advertising (falsehoods, perhaps even unintentional ones, in commercial advertising). But the government isn’t allowed to use the criminal law or even civil liability to try to police falsehoods more generally.
Fact: The government can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that are unrelated to the content of speech, so long as such restrictions aren’t too burdensome. But it must apply those restrictions uniformly to speech expressing different views. Indeed, it generally can’t discriminate based on subject matter, let alone viewpoint.
Fact: The law can’t target flag burning for special punishments, the Supreme Court held in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990). The First Amendment protects speech and symbolic expression even when it expresses offensive and anti-American ideas. However, the government can evenhandedly apply neutral laws to flag burning; for instance, someone who steals a flag and burns it can be punished for theft or for vandalism. But the law has to be applied equally regardless of whether the person stole a flag or anything else.
Fact: The First Amendment restricts the government but not private individuals or businesses. Its first words are “Congress shall make no law,” and the Fourteenth Amendment, which starts with “No State shall” has been read as extending that precept to state and local governments. Owners of private property, including individuals or businesses, aren’t constrained by the First Amendment. There’s nothing unconstitutional about restricting speech at your own dinner table, or in a shopping mall or workplace you own or operate, or in a school or university you run. However, some state laws (and, to a modest extent, federal laws) do, in some measure, limit the power of private employers, landlords, places of public accommodation, and educational institutions to restrict speech by employees, tenants, patrons, and students; those rules differ considerably from state to state.
Bkmk
Exception: you cannot criticize Islam or muslims any such comments will be censored or never published; you could also will receive dearth threats.
No one on cable shows mentions Mamdani’s radical Iranian Islamic sect.
Who do you expect to air or publish criticisms of Islam or Muslims? News organizations are not Government, and their choice of what to censor isn’t generally a matter of law.
. . . and so cannot even define "church."
In zoning and land-use ordinance meetings in our county, we have brought this up and we have brought up the Indiana State Constitution, and have asked the question . . . .
When "church" or "churches," or "houses of worship," or such is restricted, or exempted, in zoning and land-use ordinances, is a county allowed to define "church," or "house of worship," or "worship" itself ?????
Myth: Private businesses are bound by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Fact: They are not.
IMO hate crimes are unconstitutional.
They should be; but we’ve had them since 1968.
I recall hearing a lecture by Justice John Paul Stevens, who served on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. He said the litigants in free speech and obscenity cases were always the most unsympathetic and sometimes even detestable. Think of Lincoln Rockwell, for those who remember. Yet, the Court had to hold its nose tightly in order to protect the 1st Amendment.
Didnt they call it, extreme prejudice?
///Myth: Private businesses are bound by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Fact: They are not.///
But that doesn’t mean they, or their owners, can’t be legally obliged to respect people’s rights.
Yes, you can tell fire in a crowded theater IF there is a fire.
Problem is, who would decide what a hate crime is? There are people who think anything good you say about President Trump is a hate crime.
Here are ten things you are not allowed to say:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Make sure you never say these things.
Myth: the government can restrict your right to speak in certain cases.
No, it can’t - this is called prior restraint. It CAN punish you AFTER THE FACT if you (for example) yell fire in a crowded theater when, in fact, there was no fire and your statement caused a panic which, in turn, caused injuries and/or damage to the theater. Likewise, you can be punished for revealing national security secrets (including up to the death penalty), but cannot be prevented from doing so in the first place by law or regulation, because that would be prior restraint.
“Yes, you can tell fire in a crowded theater IF there is a fire.”
——————
Wrong, that is still prior restraint.
You can yell it even if there is no fire, even if you know it will be the cause of a panic that you reasonably expect will cause injuries and even death. However, you can be appropriately punished for doing so.
The fact that you commit a crime has nothing to do with what your opinion is or what you say. Outside of self-defense for murder/assault charge it is irrelevant if you said believe/something “hurtful” while doing it. Unlike BS tv shows like Law and Order (which always wants a reason) motive is not an element of the crime.
You assault someone. Doesn’t matter what you called them.
You steal something. Doesn’t matter what you believe about people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.