Data Privacy: Free Speech Or Constitutional Right?

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression from government interference. This includes the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government. The level of protection afforded to these rights depends on the forum in which they are expressed. For example, the Supreme Court has recognised that the First Amendment protects a range of expressive activity including parades, music, paintings, and topless dancing. However, the government may impose content regulations on certain categories of expression that do not merit First Amendment protection, such as inciting or provocative speech, offensive expressions, and pornography.

Explore related products

Data Privacy: A runbook for engineers

$49.99 $49.99

Practical Data Privacy: Enhancing Privacy and Security in Data

$38.49 $65.99

The Art of Invisibility: The World's Most Famous Hacker Teaches You How to Be Safe in the Age of Big Brother and Big Data

$8.99 $21.99

On Privacy and Technology

$19.54 $24.95

IAPP CIPP / US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide (Sybex Study Guide)

$52

DATA PRIVACY: PRACTICAL HANDBOOK FOR GOVERNANCE & OPERATIONS

$9 $19.99

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of expression

The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government, even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives depends on the forum in which it takes place. For example, the right to freedom of the press is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination, but does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

The Supreme Court has recognised that the First Amendment protects a range of expressive activity including parades, music, paintings, and topless dancing. In the case of *Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire*, the Court stated that there are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise constitutional problems. However, it is well established that the government may impose content regulations on certain categories of expression that do not merit First Amendment protection.

In the context of tattooing, there has been some debate as to whether it constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment. Some courts have held that tattooing is "pure speech", while others have concluded that it is not itself expressive conduct and is therefore not protected.

The First Amendment does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. However, it does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general. The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief.

The Supreme Court has expressly recognised that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court has also taken a narrow view of the "Press Clause", holding in a line of cases that the First Amendment does not provide the press with any greater right of access than that of the general public. For example, in *Houchins v. KQED, Inc.* (1978), the Court ruled that the First Amendment did not give the press the right to enter a jail to film. In *Branzburg v. Hayes* (1972), the Court determined that the First Amendment doesn't entitle press entities to different protection or treatment from others.

The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government, even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place. The Court has pointed out that a range of views have been expressed in case law. For example, in *Anderson*, the Court held that tattooing was "pure speech", but several other courts have concluded that tattooing is not protected by the First Amendment because it is not itself expressive conduct. Determining that tattooing is protected speech also implies that the business of tattooing is constitutionally protected. This means that tattooing is subject to general laws and that it may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations.

The First Amendment does not protect certain categories of expression, such as pornography

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

However, the First Amendment does not protect certain categories of expression, such as pornography. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment does not protect two types of pornography: obscenity and child pornography. These types of pornography may be banned on the basis of their content, and federal law prohibits the mailing of obscenity, as well as its transport or receipt in interstate or foreign commerce. Most pornography is not legally obscene; to be obscene, pornography must, at a minimum, "depict or describe patently offensive 'hard core' sexual conduct".

The right to freedom of expression includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place. The right to freedom of the press is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

Explore related products

Operationalizing Data Protection & Privacy

$20

Data Privacy Program Guide: How to Build a Privacy Program that Inspires Trust

$64.95

Privacy and Data Protection Law (University Casebook Series)

$273

Privacy is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data

$16.18 $17.99

Privacy in the Age of Big Data: Recognizing Threats, Defending Your Rights, and Protecting Your Family

$30.38 $35

AI Data Privacy and Protection: The Complete Guide to Ethical AI, Data Privacy, and Security

$51.52 $64.95

The First Amendment has been interpreted as applying to the entire federal government

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives depends on the forum in which it takes place. The right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

The First Amendment does not protect all speech. Laws that limit inciting or provocative speech, often called fighting words, or offensive expressions such as pornography, are subject to Strict Scrutiny. The Court stated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942), "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise constitutional problems."

The Supreme Court has recognised that the First Amendment protects a range of expressive activity including parades, music, paintings, and topless dancing. Determining that tattooing is protected speech also implies that the business of tattooing is constitutionally protected.

Tattooing has been deemed constitutionally protected free speech

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives depends on the forum in which it takes place.

In 2012, Arizona's Supreme Court ruled that tattooing was a constitutionally protected form of free speech. This was the first such decision by any state high court in the country. The ruling stemmed from a dispute between tattoo artists Ryan and Laetitia Coleman and the Phoenix valley city of Mesa, which denied the pair a business permit to set up shop in a local strip mall.

The Court in Anderson held that tattooing was "pure speech", but several other courts have concluded that tattooing is not protected by the First Amendment because it is not itself expressive conduct. Determining that tattooing is protected speech also implies that the business of tattooing is constitutionally protected. This means that tattooing is subject to general laws and that it may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations.

The Arizona free speech decision was significant as it was the first decision by a state Supreme Court to find that tattoos can be protected speech. However, it is important to note that this does not mean that tattoo parlours can open everywhere and anywhere in Arizona. The decision is subject to general laws and reasonable time, place, and manner regulations.

Frequently asked questions