Talk:Freedom of speech in the United States
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Freedom of speech in the United States article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
| This article is a candidate to be a
U.S. Collaboration of the Month
Vote or comment on the nomination here!
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
United States v. The Progressive
Restricted Data and information about nuclear weapons and so on are one 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.
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
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.
(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
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 | talk • contribs 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC))
Grayned is referred to in List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 408 ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC))
Bolding fine print about freedom
'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.