Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of American democracy, protected by the . It safeguards various forms of expression, including political dissent, religious beliefs, and even offensive speech, from government censorship.
However, this right isn't absolute. Certain categories of speech, like incitement to violence or true threats, aren't protected. The balance between free expression and other societal interests continues to evolve, especially in areas like schools, workplaces, and online platforms.
Freedom of speech in the US Constitution
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution
This amendment prohibits the government from making laws that abridge the freedom of speech or press
The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to provide broad protections for various forms of expression
First Amendment protections
Top images from around the web for First Amendment protections
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
File:Freedom of Speech Includes The Press (32451481695).jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
American Government 2013-2014 - The Collaboratory View original
Is this image relevant?
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
File:Freedom of Speech Includes The Press (32451481695).jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for First Amendment protections
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
File:Freedom of Speech Includes The Press (32451481695).jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
American Government 2013-2014 - The Collaboratory View original
Is this image relevant?
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
File:Freedom of Speech Includes The Press (32451481695).jpg - Wikimedia Commons View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Prevents Congress from passing laws that restrict free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government
Applies to both the federal government and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, to state and local governments
Protects not only verbal speech but also various forms of expression, such as written words, art, and
Restrictions on government regulation
The government may not discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint
Any restrictions on speech must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest
The government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, but these must be applied equally to all speakers and viewpoints
Types of protected speech
The First Amendment protects a wide range of speech and expression
This includes political speech, religious speech, offensive speech, and symbolic speech
However, there are certain narrow categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment
Political speech and dissent
Political speech, including criticism of the government and advocacy for political change, receives the highest level of First Amendment protection
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to engage in peaceful political protest and civil disobedience ( Independent Community School District)
The government may not discriminate against speakers based on their political views or affiliations
Religious speech and beliefs
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and prohibits the government from establishing an official religion
Individuals have the right to express their religious beliefs and engage in religious practices, even if those beliefs or practices are unpopular or controversial
The government may not favor one religion over another or discriminate against individuals based on their religious beliefs
Offensive and hate speech
The First Amendment protects speech that is offensive, controversial, or even hateful
The Supreme Court has held that the government may not prohibit speech simply because it is offensive or disagreeable (Matal v. Tam)
However, speech that crosses the line into direct threats, harassment, or incitement to violence may not be protected
Symbolic speech and expressive conduct
The First Amendment protects not only verbal speech but also symbolic speech and expressive conduct
This includes things like burning the American flag as a form of political protest () or wearing black armbands to protest a war (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District)
The government may regulate symbolic speech and expressive conduct, but any regulations must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest
Unprotected categories of speech
While the First Amendment provides broad protections for speech, there are certain narrow categories of speech that are not protected
These categories have been defined by the Supreme Court as falling outside the scope of First Amendment protection
They include incitement, true threats, obscenity, child pornography, and defamation
Incitement and fighting words
Speech that is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action is not protected by the First Amendment (Brandenburg v. Ohio)
Fighting words, which are words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, are also not protected (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire)
True threats and intimidation
True threats, which are statements that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of intent to cause harm, are not protected by the First Amendment
Speech that constitutes intimidation, such as cross burning with the intent to intimidate, is also not protected (Virginia v. Black)
Obscenity and pornography
Obscene material, which is defined as material that appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, is not protected by the First Amendment (Miller v. California)
However, the Supreme Court has held that the government may not ban non-obscene sexual material simply because it is offensive or indecent (Reno v. ACLU)
Child pornography
The First Amendment does not protect child pornography, which is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor
The Supreme Court has held that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation and that this interest outweighs any First Amendment concerns (New York v. Ferber)
Defamation, libel and slander
Defamation, which includes both libel (written) and slander (spoken), is not protected by the First Amendment
To prove defamation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant made a false statement of fact that harmed the plaintiff's reputation
Public officials and public figures must also prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, meaning that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth (New York Times v. Sullivan)
Freedom of speech in schools
Students in public schools have First Amendment rights, but these rights are more limited than those of adults in other settings
Schools may regulate student speech that substantially disrupts the educational process or invades the rights of others
However, schools may not discriminate against student speech based on its content or viewpoint
Student speech rights
The Supreme Court has held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District)
Students have the right to express their opinions on political and social issues, as long as their speech does not substantially disrupt the educational process or invade the rights of others
School-sponsored vs individual speech
There is a distinction between school-sponsored speech (such as in a school newspaper or play) and individual student speech
Schools have more authority to regulate school-sponsored speech and may exercise editorial control over such speech as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier)
Dress codes and school uniforms
Schools may impose dress codes and uniform policies, but these policies must be content-neutral and applied equally to all students
Dress codes and uniform policies may not be used to suppress particular viewpoints or forms of expression
Pledge of Allegiance in schools
The Supreme Court has held that students may not be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
Schools may require students to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance, but they must allow students who object to opt out of participating
Freedom of speech in the workplace
Employees have more limited First Amendment rights in the workplace than in other settings
Public employees have some First Amendment protections, while private employees are generally not protected by the First Amendment
However, there are some statutory protections for employee speech, such as whistleblower laws
Public vs private employees
Public employees have some First Amendment protections for speech on matters of public concern
However, the government may regulate public employee speech if it is not on a matter of public concern or if the government's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs outweighs the employee's interest in speaking (Pickering v. Board of Education)
Private employees are generally not protected by the First Amendment, as the First Amendment only applies to government action
Whistleblower protections
There are various federal and state laws that protect employees who report illegal or unethical conduct by their employers
These whistleblower protections apply to both public and private employees and prohibit retaliation against employees who engage in protected whistleblowing activities
Off-duty conduct and social media
Employers may regulate employee speech that occurs on the job or using employer resources
However, employers may not discriminate against employees based on their off-duty political activities or affiliations
Employers may also regulate employee speech on social media if it violates company policies or reflects poorly on the employer, but any such regulations must be applied consistently and not discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of the speech
Regulation of speech
While the First Amendment provides broad protections for speech, the government may still regulate speech in certain ways
Any regulations on speech must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest
The government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, but these must be applied equally to all speakers and viewpoints
Time, place and manner restrictions
The government may impose content-neutral restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech
These restrictions must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and must leave open alternative channels for communication
Examples of permissible time, place, and manner restrictions include requiring permits for parades or limiting the volume of amplified sound in residential areas
Prior restraint and censorship
The First Amendment prohibits , which is censorship of speech before it occurs
The Supreme Court has held that any system of prior restraint bears a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity (New York Times v. United States)
However, there are some narrow exceptions to the prohibition on prior restraint, such as for national security reasons or to prevent the publication of obscene material
Broadcast media regulation
The government has more authority to regulate broadcast media (such as radio and television) than other forms of media
This is because the broadcast spectrum is a scarce public resource, and the government has an interest in ensuring that it is used in the public interest
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the authority to regulate indecent content on broadcast media, although this authority is more limited for cable and satellite media
Commercial speech and advertising
(such as advertising) receives less First Amendment protection than other forms of speech
The government may regulate commercial speech if it is false, misleading, or related to illegal activity
The government may also require disclosures in commercial speech to prevent consumer deception (Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel)
Contemporary freedom of speech issues
There are many contemporary issues and controversies related to freedom of speech
These include debates over , campus speech, online speech, campaign finance, and national security
As technology and society evolve, the courts will continue to grapple with how to apply First Amendment principles to new and emerging forms of speech
Hate speech vs free speech
There is an ongoing debate over whether hate speech should be protected by the First Amendment
Some argue that hate speech causes tangible harm and should be regulated, while others argue that restricting hate speech would violate core First Amendment principles
In the United States, hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment unless it crosses the line into incitement, true threats, or other unprotected categories of speech
Campus speech controversies
There have been many recent controversies over free speech on college and university campuses
Some students and faculty have argued for restrictions on hate speech and offensive speech, while others have argued that such restrictions would violate academic freedom and free speech principles
Courts have generally held that public universities must respect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty, but private universities have more leeway to regulate speech
Online speech and social media
The rise of the internet and social media has created new challenges for free speech
Online speech can be anonymous, instantaneous, and far-reaching, making it difficult to regulate
There are ongoing debates over issues such as online harassment, fake news, and content moderation by social media companies
Campaign finance as speech
There is an ongoing debate over whether campaign finance should be treated as a form of speech protected by the First Amendment
Some argue that restrictions on campaign contributions and spending violate free speech rights, while others argue that such restrictions are necessary to prevent corruption and ensure fair elections
The Supreme Court has held that campaign finance restrictions may violate the First Amendment if they are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest (Citizens United v. FEC)
National security and free speech
There is a tension between national security interests and free speech rights
The government may restrict speech that poses a clear and present danger to national security, but any such restrictions must be narrowly tailored and not discriminate based on viewpoint
There are ongoing debates over issues such as government surveillance, whistleblower protections, and the publication of classified information
Key Terms to Review (18)
Barbara Jordan: Barbara Jordan was an influential American politician, civil rights leader, and educator who served as a U.S. Representative from Texas from 1973 to 1979. She was the first African American woman elected to the Texas Senate and is best known for her powerful speeches advocating for voting rights, social justice, and freedom of speech. Jordan’s legacy is deeply connected to her work in championing the rights of marginalized communities and her impact on the political landscape of Texas and the nation.
Censorship policies: Censorship policies refer to the rules and regulations that govern the suppression or restriction of information, speech, or communication deemed inappropriate, harmful, or undesirable by authorities. These policies can be enacted by governments, organizations, or institutions and often aim to protect societal values, maintain public order, or prevent the dissemination of false information. In relation to freedom of speech, censorship policies spark significant debate over the balance between protecting individuals and society and upholding the right to express ideas freely.
Clear and present danger test: The clear and present danger test is a legal standard used to determine when speech can be limited under the First Amendment. It assesses whether a person's speech poses a significant and immediate threat to public safety or national security. This test helps balance the right to free speech against the need to protect society from harmful actions that might arise from that speech.
Commercial speech: Commercial speech refers to any type of communication that primarily promotes a commercial transaction or advertises a product or service. This form of speech is generally subject to less protection under the First Amendment compared to other types of speech, such as political or artistic expression, but it still enjoys some level of protection to ensure a free marketplace of ideas.
First Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects several fundamental rights, including the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. This amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, ensuring that individuals can express their thoughts and beliefs without government interference, which is essential for a functioning society and informed citizenry.
Free speech zones: Free speech zones are designated areas set up by authorities, typically in public spaces, where individuals can gather to express their views and engage in protests or demonstrations without interference. These zones are often created in response to the need to balance the right to free speech with public safety and order, but they can also raise concerns about limiting the scope of expression and the accessibility of public forums.
Hate Speech: Hate speech refers to any kind of communication that denigrates or incites violence against a person or a group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. This term is significant in discussions about freedom of expression, as it raises questions about the limits of free speech and the potential harm that can arise from such expressions.
Prior restraint: Prior restraint refers to a legal doctrine that prohibits the government from restricting or censoring speech or publication before it occurs. This concept is rooted in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and press, making it a crucial aspect of American democracy. The principle of prior restraint emphasizes the importance of allowing ideas to be expressed freely, without government interference, unless there is a compelling reason to limit that expression.
Strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a legal standard used by courts to evaluate laws that potentially infringe on fundamental rights or discriminate based on suspect classifications, such as race or religion. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that the challenged law serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, meaning there are no less restrictive alternatives available. This high level of scrutiny is crucial in protecting individual freedoms, especially in matters related to free speech and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Symbolic speech: Symbolic speech refers to actions or symbols that express opinions or beliefs without spoken words, often protected under the First Amendment as a form of free expression. This type of speech includes nonverbal communication such as gestures, clothing, flags, or art that convey a message or viewpoint. Symbolic speech plays a significant role in political and social movements, allowing individuals to demonstrate their beliefs in powerful ways.
Texas Civil Rights Movement: The Texas Civil Rights Movement was a series of events and actions aimed at ending racial discrimination and securing equal rights for African Americans, Mexican Americans, and other marginalized groups in Texas during the mid-20th century. It involved grassroots organizing, protests, legal challenges, and advocacy efforts that sought to dismantle systemic inequalities in areas such as education, voting rights, and public accommodations. The movement significantly contributed to the broader national civil rights struggle while highlighting the unique challenges faced in Texas.
Texas Constitution Article I, Section 8: Texas Constitution Article I, Section 8 guarantees the right to free speech, allowing individuals to express their opinions without fear of government censorship. This section emphasizes the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, ensuring that citizens can communicate ideas and information freely. It establishes a fundamental legal foundation that supports not only personal expression but also public discourse and debate.
Texas Education Code: The Texas Education Code is a collection of laws that govern education in the state of Texas. It covers everything from the structure and operation of public schools to the rights and responsibilities of students, parents, and educators. The code serves as a legal framework for educational policy, impacting how education is delivered and how rights such as freedom of speech are exercised within the school environment.
Texas Government Code: The Texas Government Code is a compilation of statutes that outlines the organization and operation of the government in Texas. It serves as a legal framework that governs various aspects of state administration, including the roles and responsibilities of state agencies, local governments, and the rights of citizens. This code is essential for understanding the legal context of governance and the regulation of public affairs in Texas.
Texas v. Johnson: Texas v. Johnson was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1989 that upheld the right to burn the American flag as a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. This decision emphasized the importance of freedom of speech, even when the expression is controversial or offensive, and highlighted the ongoing debate about individual rights and state laws within the framework of American governance.
Tinker v. Des Moines: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1969 that established students' rights to free speech in public schools. The decision affirmed that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, highlighting the balance between student expression and the school's authority to maintain order.
University of Texas Free Speech Controversies: The University of Texas free speech controversies refer to a series of incidents and discussions surrounding the balance between freedom of expression and the potential for hate speech or offensive content on campus. These controversies have sparked debates about the extent to which universities can regulate speech without infringing upon constitutional rights, and have led to discussions about the role of academic institutions in fostering a safe yet open environment for all students.
William O. Douglas: William O. Douglas was an influential Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from 1939 to 1975. He was known for his strong advocacy of civil liberties, particularly in the realm of freedom of speech, and played a key role in expanding the First Amendment rights during his tenure on the Court.