Talk:Freedom of speech in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Map of USA.png This article is a candidate to be a Map of USA.png
U.S. Collaboration of the Month

Vote or comment on the nomination here!

United States v. The Progressive[edit]

This is a fascinating legal case, anyone want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Please leave a note on my user talk page,—Cirt (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Restricted Data[edit]

Restricted Data and information about nuclear weapons and the same since any information regarding nuclear weapons must be categorized as Restricted Data. I'd recommend removing the references to Restricted Data from the "Military secrets" section and merging it into the "Nuclear information" sections or eliminate the "Nuclear information" section and merge its contents into the "Military secrets" section.

Also worth clarifying that Restricted Data is not a classification in the strict sense, though Restricted Data is typically classified.

Ref. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Restricted Data page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint discrimination[edit]

The term viewpoint discrimination seems to come-up a lot on articles that discuss First Amendment cases that go to the Supreme Court. I've created the page Viewpoint Discrimination as a redirect to the section Types of speech restrictions on this article. It might be good if someone could explain what viewpoint discrimination means. -Joshuagay (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Viewpoint discrimination" is one of the forms of speech regulation that is prohibited to the government. Some reglulation of the time and manner of speech is permitted; for example, State governments may regulate the hours during which protests occur inside a Capitol building, and may require that a group obtain a permit. However, the permitting process may not discriminate between groups of people based on viewpoint--e.g. it is an impermissible requirement for a permit to be conditioned upon the content of the intended speech. This is worthwhile content to add to the article, but needs to be explained more clearly than I have just done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

California public official residence addresses[edit]

The California Government Code says:

6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.

(b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony.
(c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number.
(B) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address.
(C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period.
(D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand.
(ii) After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, business, or association shall not transfer the appointed or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium.
(iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate.
(E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public.
(2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph.
(3) An elected or appointed official may designate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address.
(d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official's home address.
(2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).
(e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official.
(f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) State constitutional officers.
(2) Members of the Legislature.
(3) Judges and court commissioners.
(4) District attorneys.
(5) Public defenders.
(6) Members of a city council.
(7) Members of a board of supervisors.
(8) Appointees of the Governor.
(9) Appointees of the Legislature.
(10) Mayors.
(11) City attorneys.
(12) Police chiefs and sheriffs.
(13) A public safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24.
(14) State administrative law judges.
(15) Federal judges and federal defenders.
(16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the President.
(g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law.

The California Penal Code says:

146e. (a) Every person who maliciously, and with the intent to obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws, or with the intent or threat to inflict imminent physical harm in retaliation for the due administration of the laws, publishes, disseminates, or otherwise discloses the residence address or telephone number of any peace officer, nonsworn police dispatcher, employee of a city police department or county sheriff's office, or public safety official, or that of the spouse or children of these persons who reside with them, while designating the peace officer, nonsworn police dispatcher, employee of a city police department or county sheriff's office, or public safety official, or relative of these persons as such, without the authorization of the employing agency, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Is there case law on this? What type of limitation on speech or expression is this? Int21h (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Grayned v The City of Rockford 1972[edit]

I think Grayned should be included here, as it clarifies the meaning of Time Place and Manner so well. "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9438961868955985513 It seems so helpful a restatement. Especially as the rule is NOT "time place or manner" restriction but a restriction on the manner at a particular place and time( Martin | talkcontribs 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC))

Grayned is referred to in List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 408 ( Martin | talkcontribs 17:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC))

Bolding fine print about freedom[edit]

Should bolding certain data be allowed? Like bolding fine print about freedom of speech? Thank you 74.95.16.5 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Student speech[edit]

'Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District' doesn't really belong in the student speech section. It is concerned with allowing use of government property (in this case schools during after hours when students have left) to present material on a non-religious subject from a religious perspective. The student's rights or viewing weren't a part of the controversy or decision. It would have been the same case if it occurred at an overzealous library.

Gsonnenf (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we add the issue of college campuses restricting freedom of speech? Brandon6300 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Other exceptions[edit]

Aren't there some other exceptions?

  • Making enemy propaganda in wartime is treason. That's what Ezra Pound could have been convicted of.
  • Conspiracy doesn't seem to require imminent illegal action.
  • In commerce, certain disclosures are required, such as nutritional information on food. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Freedom of speech in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

I am going to edit this source to include more information about time, place, and manner restrictions. Taylorwlms (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of speech in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Recording strangers in public[edit]

This sentence seems a little doubtful to me.

The right to freedom of expression includes the right to take and publish photographs of strangers in public areas without their permission or knowledge.[12][13]

Are there any better sources for this or should it be removed? It cites a blog referencing SCOTUS cases but also a news article about a Dutch court ruling, which I don't believe has ever set precedent in the US. The blog post seems well researched and credible but does concede the point that this issue hasn't actually ever been decided. 2603:3005:702:3B00:20AE:B8B7:5499:B3F9 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

On further reading of the blog page, it seems even less certain. The post highlights that this issue is largely unsettled and has garnered pretty substantially mixed opinions in related circuit cases.2603:3005:702:3B00:20AE:B8B7:5499:B3F9 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Human rights versus First Amendment[edit]

Universal human rights says that everyone has freedom of speech at all times and in all places, public or private, government or corporation, online or at work without fear of interference or threats. Apparently this is not acceptable under the First Amendment. However, human rights are broader and should be superior to the First Amendment but are not because they are merely a declaration and not a treaty of binding compliance. Is the conflict between the two a source of unresolved disagreement or is there a future where human rights are incorporated into American constitutional rights? DHT863 (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of speech under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not absolute. If it were, then it would interfere with other rights, like:
  • "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Art. 5). For example, if police officers had an absolute right to free speech, they could violate this human right by verbally abusing people in custody.
  • "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." (Art. 10) If there was an absolute right to free speech, then witnesses, attorneys, and people representing themselves could lie in court.
  • "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." (Art. 12)
  • "Everyone has the right to freedom of...religion; this right includes freedom...freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
  • "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful ... association." (Art. 20)
Near the end of the declaration, it says:
  • "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the limitations on the right to free speech are clearer:
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
The article could contain a section with information comparing freedom of speech in the United States versus international human rights treaties and with freedom of speech in other countries. AHeneen (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)