Malcolm Rivera
Political speech is a discourse delivered by a politician to persuade an audience of the correctness of their opinions or proposals, especially in the context of modern parliamentary democracies. It is a core concern of the First Amendment, and protection of speech is never stronger than when the speaker is addressing political or governmental issues. Political speech is defined as speech related to the state, government, body politic, or public administration as it relates to governmental policymaking. This includes speech by the government or candidates for office and any discussion of social issues. It does not include speech that concerns the administration, law, or civil aspects of government.
Political speech is protected by the First Amendment, but there are exceptions. Speech that is intended to provoke imminent unlawful action, or 'incitement', is not protected. Statements that communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group are also not protected. Face-to-face communication of abusive and insulting language that inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or 'fighting words', are also unprotected. Obscenity, as defined by the Miller test, is also a type of speech that is not protected.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Core political speech | Involves any "interactive communication concerning political change" |
| Core political speech | Includes discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates |
| Core political speech | Circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations |
| Core political speech | Must address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities |
| Core political speech | Is protected in traditional public forums, such as streets, sidewalks, parks, and other venues that have been traditionally devoted to public assembly and social debate |
| Core political speech | Is protected in "designated public forums," which are areas created by the government specifically for the purpose of fostering political discussion |
| Core political speech | Is subject to strict scrutiny when regulated by laws in designated public forums |
| Core political speech | Is subject to a lower level of scrutiny in nonpublic forums, allowing the government to limit speech if the limitation is reasonable and not aimed at silencing the speaker's viewpoint |
| Core political speech | Is protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees the ability to criticize the government and government officials |
| Commercial speech | Was not constitutionally protected until 1975, when the Court gave it significant protection |
| Commercial speech | Includes advertising the prices of prescription drugs, which states cannot prohibit |
| Employee speech | Is protected if it is on a matter of public concern (e.g. wider political or social issues) and not strictly a personal issue |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Core political speech involves 'interactive communication concerning political change'
- Political speech is protected in public forums, such as streets, sidewalks and parks
- In nonpublic forums, courts apply a lower level of scrutiny, allowing the government to limit core political speech
- Commercial speech was not constitutionally protected until 1975
- An employee's speech is protected if it is on a matter of public concern
Core political speech involves 'interactive communication concerning political change'
Core political speech involves interactive communication concerning political change. In Meyer v. Grant (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that core political speech involves any "interactive communication concerning political change". This includes discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, which the Supreme Court concluded are forms of political expression integral to the system of government established by the federal Constitution. Circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations are all forms of core political speech, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.
Core political speech is protected in traditional public forums, such as streets, sidewalks, parks, and other venues that have been traditionally devoted to public assembly and social debate. Strict scrutiny is also applied to laws that regulate core political speech in "designated public forums," which are areas created by the government specifically for the purpose of fostering political discussion. However, in nonpublic forums, courts apply a lower level of scrutiny, allowing the government to limit core political speech if the limitation is reasonable and not aimed at silencing the speaker's viewpoint.
Political speech has received the greatest protection of any constitutionally protected speech. The Court has stated that the ability to criticise the government and government officials is central to the meaning of the First Amendment. However, not all constitutionally protected speech is given the same level of protection. For example, until 1975, commercial speech was not constitutionally protected and could be broadly regulated by the states. Since then, however, the Court has given commercial speech significant protection, holding, for example, that a state could not prohibit pharmacies from advertising the prices of prescription drugs.
Protesting Safely: Constitutional Rights and Peaceful Demonstrations
You may want to see also
Political speech is protected in public forums, such as streets, sidewalks and parks
Core political speech involves any "interactive communication concerning political change". Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are forms of political expression integral to the system of government established by the federal Constitution. Circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations are all forms of core political speech, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.
In nonpublic forums, courts apply a lower level of scrutiny, allowing the government to limit core political speech if the limitation is reasonable and not aimed at silencing the speaker's viewpoint. For example, an employer may regulate an employee's speech if it was made pursuant to their official duties. If the speech was on a matter of public concern, it may be protected.
Obscene Speech: Protected or Prohibited by the Constitution?
You may want to see also
In nonpublic forums, courts apply a lower level of scrutiny, allowing the government to limit core political speech
Political speech has received the greatest protection of all constitutionally protected speech. The Court has stated that the ability to criticise the government and government officials is central to the meaning of the First Amendment. However, not all political speech is protected.
Core political speech involves any "interactive communication concerning political change". This includes discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, as well as circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations, so long as they address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.
Core political speech is most protected when it is expressed in traditional public forums, such as streets, sidewalks, parks, and other venues that have been traditionally devoted to public assembly and social debate. Strict scrutiny is also applied to laws that regulate core political speech in "designated public forums", which are areas created by the government specifically for the purpose of fostering political discussion.
However, in nonpublic forums, courts apply a lower level of scrutiny, allowing the government to limit core political speech if the limitation is reasonable and not aimed at silencing the speaker's viewpoint. This means that the government can restrict certain types of political speech in certain contexts, such as in the workplace, where an employee's speech may be regulated by their employer if it is not on a matter of public concern.
Constitution's Protection of African Americans: Fact or Fiction?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Commercial speech was not constitutionally protected until 1975
Political speech has received the greatest protection under the First Amendment. The Court has stated that the ability to criticise the government and government officials is central to the meaning of the First Amendment. However, not all constitutionally protected speech is given the same level of protection.
Core political speech involves any "interactive communication concerning political change". This includes discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, as well as circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations, so long as they in some way address social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities. Core political speech is most protected when expressed in traditional public forums, such as streets, sidewalks, parks, and other venues that have been traditionally devoted to public assembly and social debate.
However, in nonpublic forums, courts apply a lower level of scrutiny, allowing the government to limit core political speech if the limitation is reasonable and not aimed at silencing the speaker’s viewpoint.
Commercial speech, on the other hand, was not considered constitutionally protected until 1975. The term "commercial speech" was first introduced by the Supreme Court when it upheld Valentine v. Chrestensen in 1942, which ruled that commercial speech in public is not constitutionally protected. This precedent was overturned in Bigelow v. Virginia (1975), in which the Supreme Court held that advertisements are acts of speech that qualify for First Amendment protection. Justice Harry A. Blackmun observed, "The existence of commercial activity, in itself, is no justification for narrowing the protection of expression secured by the First Amendment".
Since then, the Court has given commercial speech significant protection, holding, for example, that a state could not prohibit pharmacies from advertising the prices of prescription drugs.
The Children's Internet Protection Act: Constitutional Controversy
You may want to see also
An employee's speech is protected if it is on a matter of public concern
Political speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, which states that the ability to criticise the government and government officials is central to its meaning. However, not all constitutionally protected speech is given the same level of protection. For example, commercial speech was not considered protected until 1975, and even now it is given less protection than political speech.
Core political speech involves any "interactive communication concerning political change". This includes discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, as well as circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations. However, this is only considered core political speech if it in some way addresses social issues, political positions, political parties, political candidates, government officials, or governmental activities.
Core political speech is given the greatest protection when it is expressed in traditional public forums, such as streets, sidewalks, parks, and other venues that have been traditionally devoted to public assembly and social debate. The government can also create designated public forums, which are areas specifically designed to foster political discussion. In these cases, strict scrutiny is applied to laws that regulate core political speech. In nonpublic forums, however, courts apply a lower level of scrutiny, allowing the government to limit core political speech if the limitation is reasonable and not aimed at silencing the speaker’s viewpoint.
Special Counsel Protection Act: Unconstitutional?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Political speech involves any "interactive communication concerning political change". This includes discussion of public issues, debate on the qualifications of candidates, circulating handbooks and petitions, posting signs and placards, and making speeches and orations.
Political speech is protected when it is expressed in traditional public forums, such as streets, sidewalks, parks, and other venues that have been traditionally devoted to public assembly and social debate.
Political speech is not protected when it is expressed in nonpublic forums, where the government can limit core political speech if the limitation is reasonable and not aimed at silencing the speaker's viewpoint.
Commercial speech is generally not constitutionally protected and can be broadly regulated by the states. However, since 1975, the Court has given commercial speech significant protection, holding, for example, that a state could not prohibit pharmacies from advertising the prices of prescription drugs.
An employee's speech is protected if it is on a matter of public concern (e.g. wider political or social issues and not strictly a personal issue). If the speech is a personal workplace critique, then it is not protected.
