Skip to main navigation
- Email Updates
- Federal Court Finder
What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”
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 imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
- 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).
Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation.
DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.
freedom of speech
Primary tabs.
Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. The First Amendment protects this right by prohibiting Congress from making laws that would curtail freedom of speech.
Even though freedom of speech is protected from infringement by the government, the government is still free to restrict speech in certain circumstances. Some of these circumstances include:
- Obscenity and Indecency – In Alliance for Community Media v. FCC , the Supreme Court found that obscenity and child pornography have no right to protection from the First Amendment, and as such, the government has the ability to ban this media altogether. But when it comes to indecency, which is generally defined by the courts as something describing or depicting offensive sexual activity, the Supreme Court has found this speech protected. But the government can regulate this speech on radio and television, so long as it’s for a compelling reason and is done in the least restrictive manner.
- Defamation – Private and public figures are able to sue someone for statements they have made. Public figures must prove that the person made the statement with malice , which means knowing the statement was false or having a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement. (See New York Times v. Sullivan ) . Private figures must prove the person failed to act with reasonable care when they made the statement.
- Incitement – If a person has the intention of inciting the violations of laws that is imminent and likely, while directing this incitement at a person or groups of persons, their speech will not be protected under the First Amendment. This test was created by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio .
- Fighting words
While the public has a right to freedom of speech when it comes to the U.S. government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities. Companies and private employers are able to regulate speech on their platforms and within their workplace since the First Amendment only applies to the government. This right allowed Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to ban President Donald Trump from their sites in 2021 without legal repercussion. Companies like Facebook and YouTube were also able to ban misleading information on Covid-19 during the 2020 pandemic.
The Supreme Court recently affirmed that private entities are not restricted by the First Amendment in the case Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck . Manhattan Neighborhood Network is a nonprofit that was given the authority by New York City to operate public access channels in Manhattan. The organization decided to suspend two of their employees after they received complaints about a film the employees produced. The employees argued that this was a violation of their First Amendment freedom of speech rights because they were being punished due to the content of their film. The Supreme Court held that Manhattan Neighborhood Network was not a government entity or a state actor , so the nonprofit couldn’t be subjected to the First Amendment.
In another case, Nyabwa v. Facebook , the Southern District of Texas also affirmed that private entities are not subject to the First Amendment. There, the plaintiff had a Facebook account, which spoke on President Donald Trump’s business conflicts of interest. Facebook decided to lock the account, so the plaintiff was no longer able to access it. The plaintiff decided to sue Facebook because he believed the company was violating his First Amendment rights. The court dismissed the lawsuit stating that the First Amendment prevents Congress and other government entities from restricting freedom of speech, not private entities.
[Last updated in June of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team ]
Legal Dictionary
The Law Dictionary for Everyone
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is a person’s right to speak his or her own opinions, beliefs, or ideas, without having to fear that the government will retaliate against him, restrict him, or censor him in any way. The term “freedom of expression” is often used interchangeably, though the “expression” in this sense has more to do with the way in which the message is being communicated (i.e. via a painting, a song, an essay, etc.). The concept of freedom of speech dates back to a time long before the Constitution was drafted, potentially as far back as Athens in 5th or 6th centuries, B.C. To explore this concept, consider the following freedom of speech definition.
Definition of Freedom of Speech
- The right to express your beliefs, ideas, and opinions without the fear of governmental reprisal or censorship .
5th or 6th Century B.C. Ancient Greece
1780s America
What is Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is the right afforded to a person to be able to speak his or her mind without fear that the government will censor or restrict what they have to say, or will retaliate against them for expressing himself. People are often confused by this concept, however, thinking that they can say anything that pops into their heads without repercussion. Just because you are allowed to say whatever you want does not mean that you will not suffer consequences as a result – it just means that the government cannot violate your right to do so.
The U.S. has many laws that place limits on speech and other forms of expression, which may be seen as harsh restrictions. These include prohibitions against defamation , slander , copyright violations, and trade secrets, amongst others. American philosopher Joel Feinberg posited what is known as the “offense principle,” which works to prohibit speech that is clearly offensive, or which can harm society as a whole, or a group in particular, such as racial hate speech , or hate speech aimed at someone’s religion.
Different countries have different rules insofar as freedom of speech is concerned, with some countries’ governments becoming more involved than other governments in the affairs of their citizens. Communist countries like China are often in the news for blocking their citizens’ access to the internet, and restricting their ability to both read and express ideas and beliefs of which their government does not approve. Here in the United States, examples of freedom of speech include criticisms against the government, and the promotion of ideas or beliefs that others might find to be controversial. In the U.S., these kinds of statements are allowed, within the constraints of the “offense principle,” or the “harm principle.”
Freedom of Speech Amendment
The concept of freedom of speech came into being in the United States back in the 1780s, when Anti-Federalists, like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, expressed their concerns that the federal government could eventually become too powerful. To keep the government in check, the Bill of Rights was drafted, which gave us, among other guarantees, freedom of speech, as detailed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which can also be considered the Freedom of Speech Amendment :
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In addition to offering citizens protection from government interference in the expression of their ideas, the Freedom of Speech Amendment also them with the freedom to exercise one’s religion free from persecution. This is known as the Free Exercise Clause . Under this clause , citizens are permitted to adopt any religion they choose, and to take part in the rituals that the religion dictates.
Similarly, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from establishing one official religion that the country’s citizens all must follow. It also prevents the government from developing a preference for, or promoting one religion over another, religion over the lack of religion, or non-religion over religion.
In short, the Constitution guarantees that all people may worship who or how they may, but the federal government has no say in the matter, and may not adopt an official stance. There has been some misunderstanding about this “Separation of Church and State” clause, as it does not prohibit people from expressing their religious preferences in public, but only prevents a governmental entity from promoting any religion over another.
Freedom of the press, which allows publications to print opinions free of governmental censorship, is also permitted under the Freedom of Speech Amendment. Additionally, those who wish to gather in protest against the government are permitted, under the First Amendment, to “assemble peaceably,” which is why protests are permitted on public property, so long as they remain peaceful.
Freedom of Speech Quotes
Throughout time, people have craved, even when it was denied them, the right to freely express themselves. Freedom of speech quotes have survived centuries, to be used again and again, as people fight for this basic human right. What follows are ten great examples of freedom of speech quotes, wherein folks have either defended the policy as is, or have defended the laws that keep freedom of speech in check.
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky
“Freedom of speech is useless without freedom of thought.” – Spiro Agnew
“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” – Benjamin Franklin
“There has to be a cut-off somewhere between the freedom of expression and a graphically explicit free-for-all.” – E.A. Bucchianeri
“For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.” – George Washington
“Those who make conversations impossible, make escalation inevitable.” – Stefan Molyneux
“Freedom of speech is a guiding rule, one of the foundations of democracy , but at the same time, freedom does not imply anarchy , and the right to exercise free expression does not include the right to do unjustified harm to others.” – Raphael Cohen-Almagor
“Freedom of speech gives you the right to stay silent.” – Neil Gaiman
“Should freedom of speech include the freedom to tell lies? Who decides what is true and what is a lie? Should the young and impressionable be exposed to propaganda deliberately designed to make them hate others? If we deny the deniers the right to spread their venom, are we then putting our own right to free speech at risk? At which point does hate speech so directly provoke violence that it should be banned?” – Ted Gottfried
“Two things form the bedrock of any open society: freedom of expression and rule of law. If you don’t have those things, you don’t have a free country.” – Salman Rushdie
Freedom of Speech Examples in Legal Cases
More than inspirational freedom of speech quotes, the issue has inspired a number of court cases over the years. Some examples of freedom of expression and freedom of speech cases are discussed below in more detail:
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
In the first case to ever be tried by the American Civil Liberties Union, Benjamin Gitlow had been charged with criminal anarchy, after he printed the “Left Wing Manifesto” in his publication The Revolutionary Age . He defended the piece as being an historical analysis of the concept of communism, rather than acting as an advocate for the system. He was convicted upon the completion of his trial and was ordered to serve five to ten years in prison .
Gitlow appealed the conviction, and his appeal was granted, after he had already served two years at Sing Sing. He was released on bail , only to be re-incarcerated three years later when the Supreme Court upheld the original conviction.
The Court ultimately determined that publication of the “Left Wing Manifesto” was indeed a crime. Despite having served as a leader of the Communist Party in the late 1920s, Gitlow publicly rejected the party in 1939, having become an outspoken anti-communist in 1934, and he remained one of the leading opponents of communism until his death on July 19, 1965.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
In 1969, Ku Klux Klan leader, David Brandenburg, was convicted of criminal act, one of which was advocating “the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.”
This followed his participation in a 1964 Klan rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, which Brandenburg had asked a local reporter to cover. During the rally, Brandenburg made a speech against the government, claiming that the government was “suppressing the Caucasian race.”
The court convicted Brandenburg, fining him $1,000, and sentencing him to one to ten years in prison. Brandenburg appealed, saying that his right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated. His appeal was denied by both the Ohio First District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ohio, with the latter flat-out dismissing it without even offering an opinion .
This case led to the establishment of what is known as the Brandenburg Test , which is the standard by which potentially inflammatory speech is measured. Speech can only be prohibited if (1) it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Related Legal Terms and Issues
- Anti-Federalist – A political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government, and opposed the ratification of the Constitution in 1787.
- Defamation – An intentional false statement that harms a person’s reputation, or which decreases the respect or regard in which a person is held.
- Copyright – A legal device that gives the creator of a literary, artistic, musical, or other creative work the sole right to publish and sell that work.
- Slander – An intentional false statement that harms a person’s reputation, or which decreases the respect or regard in which a person is held.
- Trade Secrets – Designs, practices, processes, commercial methods, techniques, or information that is not generally known by others, which gives a business an advantage over competitors.
- History Classics
- Your Profile
- Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
- This Day In History
- History Podcasts
- History Vault
Freedom of Speech
By: History.com Editors
Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017
Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.
The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.
During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.
First Amendment
In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.
The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution . The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.
The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.
In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.
It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.
Flag Burning
While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.
Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.
The U.S. Supreme Court , in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.
When Isn’t Speech Protected?
Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.
Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:
- Obscene material such as child pornography
- Plagiarism of copyrighted material
- Defamation (libel and slander)
- True threats
Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.
The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I . The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.
Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.
American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.
Freedom of Expression
The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.
In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.
In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.
Free Speech in Schools
In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa , organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.
The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.
What does free speech mean?; United States Courts . Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts . Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU .
Sign up for Inside History
Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.
By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.
More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us
freedom of speech - Meaning in Law and Legal Documents, Examples and FAQs
Free speech means the right to express your thoughts and opinions without fear of punishment or censorship.
In normal language you would also say " free speech " instead of " freedom of speech "
Need help understanding your legal documents?
66,230+ legal document summaries created for 20,497 happy customers
What does "freedom of speech" mean in legal documents?
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions without fear of punishment from the government. This right is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that Congress cannot make laws that limit this freedom. In simple terms, it means you can say what you want, write what you feel, and share your opinions openly. However, this freedom is not absolute, and there are certain situations where the government can step in and impose restrictions.
One important aspect of freedom of speech is that it protects a wide range of expressions, including spoken words, written texts, and even symbolic actions like protests. However, there are exceptions to this protection. For instance, speech that is considered obscene, such as child pornography, is not protected under the First Amendment. This means the government has the authority to ban such materials entirely. On the other hand, indecent speech, which may be offensive but does not cross the line into obscenity, is generally protected, although the government can regulate it in specific contexts, like on television and radio.
Another key point is that individuals can face legal consequences for making false statements about others, known as defamation. If someone makes a harmful statement about a public figure, that person must prove that the statement was made with malicious intent, meaning the speaker knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. For private individuals, the standard is lower; they only need to show that the speaker did not exercise reasonable care in making the statement.
It's also important to note that freedom of speech does not protect all forms of expression. For example, if someone incites violence or encourages illegal activities, that speech can be restricted. The Supreme Court has established tests to determine when speech crosses the line into incitement, meaning it is directed at inciting immediate law-breaking and is likely to produce such action.
Lastly, while freedom of speech protects individuals from government censorship, it does not apply to private companies. This means that platforms like Facebook or Twitter can set their own rules about what can be said on their sites. For instance, they can ban users for spreading false information or hate speech without violating the First Amendment. This distinction is crucial because it highlights that while you have the right to express yourself, private entities can choose to limit that expression on their platforms.
What are some examples of "freedom of speech" in legal contracts?
Employment Agreement: "The employee acknowledges their right to freedom of speech but agrees to refrain from making public statements that could harm the company's reputation."
Social Media Policy: "Employees are encouraged to exercise their freedom of speech on personal platforms, provided they do not disclose confidential company information."
Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA): "The parties recognize that freedom of speech does not extend to sharing proprietary information covered by this agreement."
Public Relations Contract: "The consultant will ensure that all communications respect the principles of freedom of speech while adhering to the company's guidelines."
Media Release Form: "Participants understand that their freedom of speech is protected, but they consent to the use of their statements in promotional materials."
Event Participation Agreement: "Attendees are free to express their opinions during the event, as long as they do not engage in hate speech or incitement to violence."
Content Creation Agreement: "The creator retains their freedom of speech but agrees to produce content that aligns with the brand's values and standards."
Broadcasting License Agreement: "The broadcaster must respect freedom of speech while also complying with regulations regarding indecent content."
FAQs about "freedom of speech"
What is freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is the right to express your thoughts, opinions, and ideas without fear of punishment or censorship from the government. It allows people to share their views openly, whether in writing, speaking, or other forms of communication.
What does freedom of speech protect?
Freedom of speech protects a wide range of expressions, including political opinions, artistic works, and even unpopular or controversial ideas. However, it does not protect speech that incites violence, hate speech, or threats.
Who is protected by freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech protects everyone, including individuals, groups, and organizations. This means that anyone can express their opinions and ideas, as long as they do not violate laws against harmful speech.
How is freedom of speech limited?
While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. There are limits to protect public safety, national security, and the rights of others. For example, you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, as it could cause panic and harm.
What are some examples of freedom of speech?
Examples of freedom of speech include writing a blog post about a political issue, participating in a peaceful protest, or sharing your opinion on social media. These activities allow individuals to express their beliefs and engage in public discourse.
Can freedom of speech be restricted in schools?
Yes, freedom of speech can be restricted in schools to maintain a safe and respectful learning environment. Schools can limit speech that disrupts education or promotes illegal activities, but students still have the right to express their opinions within reasonable boundaries.
What happens if someone violates freedom of speech?
If someone feels their freedom of speech has been violated, they can seek legal action. Courts often evaluate these cases to determine if the speech was protected or if it crossed legal boundaries, such as inciting violence or hate.
How does freedom of speech differ in other countries?
Freedom of speech varies by country. Some nations have strict laws that limit free expression, while others protect it more broadly. It's important to understand the laws in each country, as what is acceptable in one place may not be in another.
Why is freedom of speech important?
Freedom of speech is crucial because it allows for open dialogue, debate, and the exchange of ideas. It helps hold governments accountable and promotes democracy by giving people a voice in society.
These legal terms could also be helpful
The legal term 'for' is used to indicate the reason or purpose behind an action, similar to saying 'because of' in everyday language.
Equal Rights Amendment
The Equal Rights Amendment is a proposed change to the U.S. Constitution that aims to guarantee equal rights for all people, regardless of their sex.
appellate jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction, or appeal power, is the authority of a higher court to review and change the decision made by a lower court.
repair and deduct
Repair and deduct, or 'fix and take off,' is a way for renters to pay for necessary repairs in their home and subtract that cost from their rent if the landlord doesn't fix things in a timely manner.
buffer zone
A buffer zone, or safety area, is a space that separates different activities or places to reduce conflict or protect people and the environment.
sale or return
A 'sale or return' agreement lets you buy something but return it for a refund if you decide you don't want it after trying it out.
certificate of formation
A certificate of formation, also known as business registration, is an official document that shows a company is legally recognized and allowed to operate in its state.
Issuable means something that can be officially given out or provided, like a ticket or a certificate.
The Law Dictionary
Your Free Online Legal Dictionary • Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.
Freedom Of Speech
Definition and citations:.
a guarantee of the 1st and 14th amendment giving people the right o speak without any restriction from the government.
Latest Articles
- What is an LLC? FAQs and Answers for LLC Formation
- Tailor Brands: Legal Services Review
- ZenBusiness vs. LegalZoom: Comparison
- How Much Does It Cost To Form an LLC?
- How to Create an LLC Operating Agreement
How Do You Prove a Defamation of Character Claim? How Do You Prove a Defamation of Character Claim?
The Legalities Of Hate Speech The Legalities Of Hate Speech
- Find a Lawyer
- Ask a Lawyer
- Research the Law
- Law Schools
- Laws & Regs
- Newsletters
- Justia Connect
- Pro Membership
- Basic Membership
- Justia Lawyer Directory
- Platinum Placements
- Gold Placements
- Justia Elevate
- Justia Amplify
- PPC Management
- Google Business Profile
- Social Media
- Justia Onward Blog
- Freedom of Speech Under the Constitution
One of the most important and contested constitutional rights is the right to free speech in the First Amendment. This prevents the government from imposing criminal penalties or civil sanctions on citizens based on what they say or write. While the constitutional text specifically prevents Congress from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press, the First Amendment applies to all types of government actors at federal, state, and local levels. On the other hand, it does not ban restraints on speech imposed by private entities. For example, a private employer can discipline its employees for their statements.
For First Amendment purposes, "speech" is defined broadly to cover:
- Written and printed text
- Oral statements
- Television and radio broadcasts
- Internet posts
- "Symbolic speech": non-written and non-spoken forms of expression (wearing armbands or uniforms, displaying or burning flags, etc.) that tend to have a political or social message
Regulations based on the content of speech are generally unconstitutional. For example, the government cannot prevent people from stating their views on public issues or criticizing the actions of public officials. This would undermine democracy by preventing citizens from getting access to a full spectrum of information and ideas. The Supreme Court has applied First Amendment protections generously. They may even cover hate speech, blasphemy, vulgar speech, and videogames that contain what might be seen as an offensive level of violence.
Exceptions to the Ban on Content-Based Restrictions
That said, the government has greater discretion to regulate certain narrowly defined types of speech. These include threats to commit a crime and "fighting words," which are insults delivered to the target’s face that are likely to cause a physical fight. "Fighting words" are generally limited to personal attacks and do not include statements that may be more generally offensive, such as political slogans, even if the audience is offended and responds with violence. Child pornography falls outside the First Amendment because it depicts real children engaging in sexual activities, which could encourage child sexual abuse. Pornography involving adults falls outside the First Amendment only if it is extremely explicit, such that it is considered obscene.
The First Amendment may not shield a speaker from a lawsuit for defamation, which involves a false statement that causes harm to the subject. In some cases, the speaker may face criminal penalties, although these are unusual. Public officials bringing defamation cases face a higher bar than private citizens in overcoming First Amendment barriers. They generally must prove that the statement was made with actual malice, which means that the speaker knew that the statement was false or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth.
Free speech protections apply to advertising to a lesser extent, especially when it misleads the public. The First Amendment does not prevent the government from banning misleading advertising, even though the government likely cannot interfere with political speech that may be misleading.
Content-Neutral Restrictions
Regulations on speech that do not involve the content of the speech are more likely to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. These are often known as "time, place, and manner" restrictions. Content-neutral regulations might include municipal ordinances controlling the size and placement of signs on government property, or rules that limit the location and size of protests, the hours when they can be held, or the volume of sound-amplifying devices. The government gets the benefit of the doubt regarding these restrictions as long as they are reasonable, since they do not target a certain type of speaker or message. Thus, the government is not taking sides between viewpoints.
Content-neutral restrictions are most likely to be considered unreasonable if they completely ban a certain type of protected expression. For example, the First Amendment probably does not permit a blanket ban on all demonstrations in all public parks, or all distribution of leaflets on all public streets.
Restricted Settings
First Amendment protections apply less strictly in settings over which the government has greater control. These include public schools and government workplaces. Content-based restrictions may be appropriate in these settings to discipline speakers who fail to conform with the norms imposed by their status. The First Amendment does not prevent a government agency from requiring an employee to keep classified information confidential, for example, even though this is technically a content-based restriction on speech. Teachers can be disciplined for speech that encourages students to engage in illegal or inappropriate conduct.
Last reviewed June 2024
Constitutional Law Center Contents
- Constitutional Law Center
- The U.S. Supreme Court & the Legal Scope of Its Authority
- Due Process Rights Legally Provided by the Constitution
- Equal Protection Rights Legally Provided by the Constitution
- Religious Freedom Under the Constitution
- Abortion and Reproductive Rights Under the Constitution
- Gun Rights Under the Constitution
- LGBTQ+ Legal Rights Under the Constitution
- The Death Penalty Under the Constitution
- The Commerce Power of Congress Legally Granted by the Constitution
- Abortion Laws: 50-State Survey
- Foreign Abortion Laws
- Gun Laws 50-State Survey
- Death Penalty Laws: 50-State Survey
- Constitutional Law FAQs
Related Areas
- Civil Rights and Discrimination Legal Center
- Criminal Law Center
- Family Law Center
- Communications and Internet Law Center
- LGBTQ+ Legal Resource Center
- Native American Law Center
- Related Areas
- Bankruptcy Lawyers
- Business Lawyers
- Criminal Lawyers
- Employment Lawyers
- Estate Planning Lawyers
- Family Lawyers
- Personal Injury Lawyers
- Estate Planning
- Personal Injury
- Business Formation
- Business Operations
- Intellectual Property
- International Trade
- Real Estate
- Financial Aid
- Course Outlines
- Law Journals
- US Constitution
- Regulations
- Supreme Court
- Circuit Courts
- District Courts
- Dockets & Filings
- State Constitutions
- State Codes
- State Case Law
- Legal Blogs
- Business Forms
- Product Recalls
- Justia Connect Membership
- Justia Premium Placements
- Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
- Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
- Testimonials
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
What Does Free Speech Mean? Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech.
Freedom of speech is the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. The First Amendment protects this right by prohibiting Congress from making laws that would curtail freedom of speech.
Speech, in legal terms, refers to the expression of thoughts, ideas, or opinions through spoken words, written text, or other forms of communication. It is a fundamental right protected by laws in many countries, allowing individuals to share their views freely.
freedom of speech, right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content.
Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government [1] [2] [3] [4] The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. [5]
Freedom of Speech defined and explained with examples. Freedom of Speech is the right to express one's beliefs, ideas, and opinions without fear of governmental reprisal.
Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts. In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information.
What does "freedom of speech" mean in legal documents? Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions without fear of punishment from the government.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH Definition & Legal Meaning. Definition & Citations: a guarantee of the 1st and 14th amendment giving people the right o speak without any restriction from the government.
One of the most important and contested constitutional rights is the right to free speech in the First Amendment. This prevents the government from imposing criminal penalties or civil sanctions on citizens based on what they say or write.