Free Speech: A Constitutional Right Or Not?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, protects freedom of speech. The Amendment states that Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech. While the Amendment protects speech even when the ideas put forth are offensive, immoral, or hateful, it does not protect speech that incites people to break the law or that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment. The Supreme Court has ruled on several notable cases involving freedom of speech, including West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, Tinker v. Des Moines, and Brandenburg v. Ohio. The First Amendment's protection of free speech is a highly debated topic, with ongoing discussions about what exactly constitutes protected speech.

Explore related products

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

$18.82 $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 $7.95

Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment

$14.59 $20

First Amendment (Examples & Explanations)

$50.09 $76.95

The First Amendment

Public universities are subject to the First Amendment and must respect individuals' freedom of speech. However, universities can restrict speech that defames an individual, constitutes a genuine threat, or is likely to provoke unlawful action. They can also regulate the time, place, and manner of speech to ensure it does not disrupt the university's ordinary activities.

Freedom of speech limitations

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, prevents Congress from making laws that curtail the freedom of speech. However, there are limitations to this freedom.

The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites people to break the law or commit acts of violence. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may forbid "incitement"—speech "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action". The Supreme Court has also clarified that for speech to be considered "incitement," it must be directed at a specific person or group, and there must be evidence that the speaker intended to produce imminent disorder.

Additionally, the government may generally restrict the time, place, or manner of speech if the restrictions are unrelated to the content of the speech and allow for alternative means of expression. For example, the government may restrict the use of loudspeakers in residential areas at night, limit demonstrations that block traffic, or ban picketing near people's homes.

Certain categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment, including defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. Defamatory lies, lying under oath, and fraud may be punished, and certain types of hardcore pornography may also fall under the category of obscenity and be subject to punishment.

Speech on university campuses is also subject to limitations. Universities may restrict speech that defames an individual, constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, is likely to provoke imminent unlawful action, or violates the law. The university administration may also apply reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions to ensure that speech does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the university.

Freedom of the press

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the "Free Speech Clause" which protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This means that Congress cannot make laws that restrict the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press. The First Amendment protects speech even when the ideas put forth are illogical, offensive, immoral, or hateful.

The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites people to break the law, including committing acts of violence. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not permit a state to forbid or suppress advocacy for the use of force or violation of the law unless such advocacy is intended to produce imminent lawless action and is likely to do so. The Supreme Court has also ruled that "true threats," which are statements made with the intent to place the victim in fear of bodily harm or death, are not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, the First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes harassment, which is conduct that is sufficiently severe, persistent, and pervasive enough to interfere with an individual's educational or employment environment.

The First Amendment also protects symbolic speech, such as burning the flag in protest, and commercial speech, with some restrictions. For example, in Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council (1976), the Court ruled that a state could not prohibit pharmacists from advertising the prices of drugs. This ruling was based on the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech.

Explore related products

Understanding the First Amendment (Understanding Series)

$51.73 $55

The First Amendment (Concepts and Insights)

$45 $60

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

$28 $14.95

First Amendment For Beginners

$11.78 $15.95

The First Amendment (Aspen Casebook)

$85.99 $206

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

$240.9 $308

Freedom of religion

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments constituting the Bill of Rights, includes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects an individual's freedom of religion. This clause prevents Congress from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion or establish an official religion. In other words, it ensures that people are free to practice their chosen religion without government interference, as long as it does not conflict with "public morals" or a "compelling" government interest.

The Free Exercise Clause has been the subject of several court cases that have further defined its scope and application. For example, in the 2017 case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, the Court ruled that denying a public benefit to a religious institution based on its religious nature violates the Free Exercise Clause. Similarly, in the 2020 case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court found that a state could not deny a tax credit based on a Blaine Amendment in the state's constitution without meeting strict scrutiny and being narrowly tailored to promote the highest-order interests.

The First Amendment also includes the Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This clause ensures the separation of church and state, preventing the government from establishing or favouring any particular religion. The Supreme Court has set forth a three-part test, known as the "Lemon" test, to determine whether government action regarding religion is constitutional. Under this test, government assistance to religion is permissible only if its primary purpose is secular, it does not promote or inhibit religion, and there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

While the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, it does not grant an absolute right to practice religious beliefs without limitation. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may interfere with religious practices if there is a compelling state interest, such as protecting public health and safety. For example, in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Court held that a state could require parents to vaccinate their children, even if it conflicted with their religious beliefs, as the state had an overriding interest in safeguarding public health.

In conclusion, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the freedom of religion by prohibiting Congress from making laws that establish a religion or impede its free exercise. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, as interpreted by the courts, ensure that individuals can practice their religion without government interference, while also maintaining a separation between church and state. However, religious freedom is not absolute, and the government may override religious practices in certain circumstances, such as when there is a compelling state interest at stake.

Freedom of assembly

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees the freedom of assembly, alongside the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. The freedom of assembly protects the right of people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes, and is closely associated with the right to association and belief. This right is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, according to the Supreme Court.

The freedom of assembly is a crucial component of a democratic society, enabling individuals to come together and engage in collective action, such as protests or demonstrations, to express their views and influence public discourse. It allows like-minded individuals to unite and pursue shared goals, fostering a sense of community and solidarity. This freedom is particularly significant for minority groups, who may face challenges in having their voices heard through traditional channels. By assembling, they can amplify their message and draw attention to their cause.

The right to assemble has been central to various social and political movements throughout history, including the Civil Rights Movement. During this period, activists leveraged their freedom of assembly to organize marches, rallies, and sit-ins, protesting racial injustice and advocating for equal rights. The ability to gather en masse was instrumental in raising awareness, galvanizing supporters, and exerting pressure on those in power to enact change.

While the freedom of assembly is a fundamental right, it is not without limitations. The government may impose certain restrictions to maintain public order and safety. For example, the government can regulate the time, place, and manner of assemblies to ensure they do not interfere with the rights of others or create a significant risk of harm. Additionally, assemblies that promote unlawful activities, incite violence, or pose a clear and present danger may fall outside the scope of protected speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has played a pivotal role in defending the freedom of assembly since its founding in 1920. The organization has worked tirelessly to protect the rights of individuals and groups, including those expressing unpopular or controversial views, to assemble and engage in peaceful protest. The ACLU's efforts have helped to shape the legal landscape surrounding the freedom of assembly, ensuring that this fundamental right remains protected and accessible to all.

Frequently asked questions