Skip to main content

Free Speech is Limited in the US

 


People are understandably frustrated when they believe they have the right to express anything they want in the US because of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech.

I am not an attorney so, check what I am saying with an attorney who understands US constitutional law. What I can do is refer readers to sources to learn more.

The US Courts at uscourts.gov offers information on what the courts have ruled. I hope this is helpful when considering what people cannot do.


Freedom of speech includes the right:


Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).


Freedom of speech does not include the right:


To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).


To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).


To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).


To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).


Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Additional information from the Constitution Center



"The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government."

Possibly relevant to the January 2021 crisis in Washington are the following points.

1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:

a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States (1969).

c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).

Democracy & Me includes an article on the limitations on free speech by Dr. David Childs of NKU.
https://www.democracyandme.org/does-free-speech-have-limitations/

What about private companies like Facebook?
The American Bar Association notes the limitations of the First Amendment to "government actors."
They cite a case about Facebook.




We citizens of the US have a wide range of opportunities to voice our opinions. When it comes to damaging other people's reputations, harming them, or threatening harm, there are limits. Again, I am not an attorney so, for nuanced opinions you will have to ask an expert.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SPIRITUAL ABUSE: An Investigation

Investigating Spiritual Harassment and Abuse  WP Post Article In an exclusive article, Ian Shapira reported on problems within the US Anglican Church (2025, October 24). Two leaders in the Anglican church are identified early in the WP report.    [Ruch, who has been a bishop for 12 years, is one of two top leaders in the continent’s Anglican denomination confronting allegations of wrongdoing. The other is its senior-most official, Archbishop Stephen Wood. A married father of four sons, Wood, 62, has been accused by a former employee of trying to kiss her last year inside his church office in South Carolina, according to a new church presentment, which The Washington Post obtained in advance of its Monday submission. The accusations, which include plagiarizing sermons and demeaning colleagues, could prompt an ecclesiastical trial against Wood and his removal from ministry, according to the denomination’s laws. (Shapira, 2025).] ***** My concern is for people who have exper...

Marriage Under Reconstruction

The 1950s imaginary sentimental love man as protein-carbs winner (bring home the bacon & breadwinner) marriage has ended for most people in most Western cultures. Some folks retain that image, or some photoshopped version of it, as the ideal traditional marriage.  Picture the happy couple at church with King James Bibles under their arms and you get the Protestant Christian version of this traditional marriage. Changes are a constant The changes in marriage and romantic relationships in the last few decades are staggering for anyone alive before the 1960s. Human behavior is my business. I am a psychologist. The counseling advice offered to couples seems to reflect the mythology of the decade rather than recommendations sourced in science. I would like to say that the nature and extent of the changes in marriage and romantic relationships have never been seen before in human history. But I am no historian. Nevertheless, the changes call for some consider...

Why Social Spaces Are Psychological Forces

Louise Penny has noted that Quebec, the setting of her novels, operates almost as a character in its own right. This observation is more than literary flair; it reflects a psychological truth. Environments exert influence. They shape perception, emotion, and behavior. In social psychology, we recognize that human functioning is inseparable from context. Our interactions with others affect our mood, cognition, motivation, and even our physiological health. This is why social context is a core dimension of the SCOPES framework. Yet physical environments — even in the absence of people — also exert measurable effects. Consider how interior spaces communicate safety, warmth, or threat. A familiar chair can regulate stress; a poorly designed one can amplify discomfort. Sensory cues such as scent, sound, and texture influence our emotional states in subtle but powerful ways. Outdoor environments operate similarly. Natural settings often promote restoration, while harsh or polluted environmen...