Officials' Constitutional Safeguards: Understanding Their Legal Protections

Constitutional protection of rights and freedoms shields individuals from governmental overreach. These rights, enshrined in a country’s constitution, provide legal guarantees of fundamental human liberties. In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws that abridge freedom of speech or the press. This also applies to private parties when they conspire with public officials to violate constitutional rights. Family members of all Federal employees are now protected by § 115(a)(1) of Title 18 against assault, kidnapping, and murder, as well as attempts or threats to assault, kidnap, or murder.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.39 $359

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Freedom of expression

In the US, freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment. This includes freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition. The Supreme Court has recognised that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom". Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech even when the ideas put forth are thought to be illogical, offensive, immoral or hateful. However, freedom of speech does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. For example, threatening phone calls are not constitutionally protected.

Both local and federal government employees have a First Amendment right to speak out on important issues on their own time. In general, a federal employee’s speech is protected if that person is speaking as a private person (not a spokesperson for their job), if it is about a matter of public concern, and if their speech does not interfere with their job. While not at work and while not using their official authority, most government employees are allowed to contribute money to partisan groups and candidates; participate in political rallies and meetings and in partisan groups; and express opinions about political issues, candidates, and groups.

Freedom of speech

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. The First Amendment also applies to all types of government actors at federal, state, and local levels.

The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision of what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognised several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has acknowledged that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. For example, the First Amendment does not prevent a government agency from requiring an employee to keep classified information confidential. Teachers can also be disciplined for speech that encourages students to engage in illegal or inappropriate conduct.

The First Amendment may not shield a speaker from a lawsuit for defamation, which involves a false statement that causes harm to the subject. Public officials bringing defamation cases face a higher bar than private citizens in overcoming First Amendment barriers. They must generally prove that the statement was made with actual malice, meaning that the speaker knew that the statement was false or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth.

The term "speech" is interpreted broadly and includes spoken and written words as well as symbolic speech (e.g. what a person wears, reads, performs, protests, and more). The First Amendment protects speech even when the ideas put forth are thought to be illogical, offensive, immoral or hateful. However, it does not prevent restraints on speech imposed by private entities. For example, a private employer can discipline its employees for their statements.

Freedom of the press

The constitutional protection of rights and freedoms shields individuals from governmental overreach and provides legal guarantees of fundamental human liberties. These rights, enshrined in a country's constitution, apply to both public and private parties. In the context of freedom of the press, this means that journalists and media organisations are protected from government interference in their reporting and publishing activities.

The role of courts in enforcement is crucial to upholding these constitutional protections. Courts interpret and apply the law, ensuring that government officials do not exceed their authority and that individuals' rights are respected. This includes protecting the freedom of the press by ruling on cases involving censorship, prior restraint, and other restrictions on journalistic activities.

In addition to constitutional protections, there are also specific laws and regulations in place to protect journalists and media organisations. For example, in the United States, the Federal Shield Law provides legal protection for journalists' sources and materials. This law recognises the important role that confidential sources play in investigative journalism and ensures that journalists can report on matters of public interest without fear of reprisal.

While freedom of the press is a fundamental right, it is not without its limitations. As mentioned earlier, certain types of speech may be restricted to maintain public order. Additionally, journalists and media organisations must also abide by laws and regulations that apply to all citizens, such as those pertaining to privacy, defamation, and national security.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$269.76 $305

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$75.91 $345

Protection from defamation

Public officials receive stronger protections against defamation claims compared to private citizens. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution shields the freedom of speech, and the actions of public officials have been viewed as a matter of public concern that merits close scrutiny. Public officials can defend against defamation claims based on their own statements by citing an absolute privilege. Members of the legislative branch, such as the U.S. Congress, also have an absolute privilege that shields them against defamation claims. The text of the U.S. Constitution supports this privilege, which extends to statements during speeches or debates that may not be related to specific legislation. The absolute privilege for the judicial branch has received less attention but is generally similar in scope. Judges can make statements that harm the reputations of others, even when they know that the statements are false and intend to cause harm.

The decision in *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan* marked an important moment in defamation law. It provided substantial protection for free speech rights, particularly in cases involving public officials or matters of public concern. The Supreme Court balanced the importance of permitting persons to seek reputational vindication by suing publishers of defamatory statements against the constitutional guarantee of a free speech and free press. The Court held that public officials could recover damages in defamation suits relating to official conduct only if they could prove "actual injury" and "actual malice". The Court later expanded the category of defamation plaintiffs required to prove "actual malice" to non-governmental "public figures".

Protection from assault, kidnapping, and murder

Certain elected and appointed officials within the federal government are provided with special protections under federal laws of the United States. These laws are in place to preserve the integrity of the government and to ensure that any defendant who engages in harmful or threatening behaviour towards the people’s representatives faces serious consequences.

The officials entitled to special protections include members of Congress, cabinet members who are appointed by the president of the United States, and justices who are serving on the Supreme Court.

The relevant statute makes clear that alleged violations of the laws protecting government officials from kidnapping, murder or assault can be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Attempted kidnapping or attempted murder can result in life imprisonment, while conspiring with anyone else to violate 18 U.S. code section 351 by kidnapping or killing a protected government official could result in a life sentence or the death penalty. Assaulting designated officials can result in a fine and imprisonment for up to a year, unless a dangerous weapon was used or injury resulted, in which case a defendant convicted of the offense could face imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Frequently asked questions