The Constitution And Freedom Of Speech: A Complex Relationship

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression from government restrictions. This means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organisations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances. The First Amendment also protects symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, wearing armbands, or protesting. While freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right in the US, it is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions, such as time, place, and manner limitations. The Supreme Court has recognised several categories of speech that are given lesser protection or no protection by the First Amendment, including speech that constitutes harassment, defamation, or genuine threats.

Explore related products

Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful

$18.87 $32.99

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment

$10.99 $17.99

A Short & Happy Guide to the First Amendment (Short & Happy Guides)

$28 $28

The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom

$23

Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment

$14.59 $20

First Amendment (Examples & Explanations)

$50.09 $76.95

Freedom of speech and the press

Freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted in 1791, protects the right to freedom of speech and expression from government restrictions. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech".

The First Amendment's right to free speech prevents government restrictions on speech, but not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects speakers against all government agencies and officials, including federal, state, and local governments. This means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organisations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.

The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, wearing armbands, or participating in protests. The Supreme Court has recognised that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. For example, restrictions may be placed on someone protesting loudly in front of someone's house in the middle of the night, or on someone sitting in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour. These restrictions are content-neutral and address legitimate societal concerns.

The First Amendment also protects hate speech, based on the idea that the government should not shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find offensive or disagreeable. However, hate speech may be prohibited and punished if it falls into categories of unprotected speech, such as harassment or genuine threats.

The First Amendment also protects freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot censor or restrict the press, allowing for a free and independent media.

Symbolic expression

The Supreme Court has recognised that symbolic expression is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment. In the case of United States v. O'Brien (1968), the Supreme Court created a four-part test to determine when the regulation of symbolic speech violates the First Amendment:

• Is the law within the constitutional power of the government?
• Does the regulation further an important or substantial governmental interest?
• Is the governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression?
• Is the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest?

The O'Brien test has been applied in several subsequent cases involving symbolic expression, including Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and Spence v. Washington (1974). In Tinker, the Supreme Court held that a school district's prohibition on students wearing black armbands to protest a war was a suppression of student symbolic expression and, therefore, a First Amendment violation. Similarly, in Spence, the Court ruled that laws dealing with flag burning or misuse are "directly related to expression in the context of activity" and, thus, protected symbolic speech.

While symbolic expression is generally protected, there are some caveats. Symbolic expression may be regulated or restricted if it causes a specific, direct threat to another individual or public order. Additionally, the Supreme Court has recognised several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, including fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, and obscene gestures.

Freedom to assemble

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, guarantees the freedom to assemble. This freedom is closely linked to the right to free speech and freedom of expression.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The right to assemble is, therefore, constitutionally protected, and it allows people to gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political, or religious purposes. This right also includes the freedom to protest the government.

The right of assembly gained particular prominence in tributes to the Bill of Rights as the United States entered World War II. Several eminent twentieth-century Americans, including Eleanor Roosevelt and Orson Welles, emphasised the significance of the assembly right. However, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt switched to a different grouping of "four freedoms" to rally support for American entry into World War II, assembly (along with the press) was dropped. Since then, the right to assemble has been somewhat neglected as a freestanding right. The Supreme Court, for instance, has not decided a case explicitly on free assembly grounds in over thirty years.

Despite this, the Supreme Court has treated assembly as subsumed within an expansive "speech" right, often referred to as "freedom of expression." The Court has also ruled that the First Amendment implicitly protects the freedom of association. For example, in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the Supreme Court recognised the right of association within the First Amendment and protected membership lists against state investigation. In addition, the right to assemble extends to preparatory activity leading up to the physical act of assembling, which has been recognised by the Supreme Court as a distinct "right of association."

Explore related products

Understanding the First Amendment (Understanding Series)

$51.73 $55

The First Amendment (Concepts and Insights)

$45

The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent

$28 $22.49

First Amendment For Beginners

$11.78 $15.95

Free Speech, Social Media Censorship, & the First Amendment: Classical Learner's Cubs to Bears

$14.99

First Amendment: [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$240.9 $308

Hate speech

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. It also protects the freedom to peacefully assemble or gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political, or religious purposes, as well as the right to protest the government. The First Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791, and states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".

While the term "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other Western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker's message—generally violate the First Amendment. One common definition of hate speech is "any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons based on race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin."

The Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech may only be prohibited and punished if it falls into one or more of the categories of unprotected speech, such as "harassment" or "true threats". The Court has also stated that speech may be restricted when it poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker intends to incite such action, and there is a likelihood that this will be the consequence of that speech. For example, in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the Supreme Court recognized the right of association within the First Amendment and protected membership lists against state investigation. In another case, Virginia v. Black (2003), the Supreme Court decided that a law criminalizing public cross-burning was unconstitutional, noting that the law would be constitutional if it included a specific intent to inspire fear of bodily harm.

While the First Amendment protects speech even when the ideas put forth are thought to be offensive, immoral, or hateful, it is important to note that freedom of speech does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. For example, universities have an obligation to create a safe and inclusive learning environment for all members of the campus community, and thus may restrict speech that constitutes a genuine threat, harassment, or is intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful action or otherwise violates the law.

Time, place and manner restrictions

While the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, this right is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions. Time, place, and manner restrictions refer to a legal doctrine enforced under the United States Constitution and Supreme Court. Time restrictions regulate when expression can take place, place restrictions regulate where expression can occur, and manner restrictions regulate how expression is carried out.

These restrictions are considered legitimate when they are content-neutral, meaning they would apply to anyone expressing anything in these situations. For example, restrictions on the time, place, and manner of expression may be imposed if someone is protesting loudly in front of someone's house in the middle of the night or if someone is sitting in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour. These actions would cause problems for other people, so restricting speech in terms of time, place, and manner addresses a legitimate societal concern.

The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content, or when the government targets the speaker's message, generally violate the First Amendment. Laws prohibiting people from criticising a war, opposing abortion, or advocating higher taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are considered problematic as they distort public debate and contradict the principle of self-governance, where the government cannot decide what ideas or information the people should be exposed to.

However, there are certain situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard. For instance, some government agencies, courts, and universities have argued that the government may restrict speech that severely offends employees, students, or patrons based on protected traits such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. In these cases, offensive speech that creates a "hostile or offensive environment" can be considered a form of discrimination, which is prohibited by law.

Frequently asked questions