Is the 21st century's idea of “freedom of speech” based on precedent? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCan U.S. states establish state religions?Does the 1st Amendment restrict executive actions?Blasphemy in the Context of Freedom of SpeechWhat first amendment limits apply to law against “parading or demonstrating?”What are the limits on categorising someone's statements as 'hatred' in regard to freedom of speech?Arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights CommissionWhy are credit rating agencies in the US imune when giving false rating?How is the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” constitutional?In the United States, is Freedom of the Press absolute, or are there limits on it?Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech?
Is a distribution that is normal, but highly skewed, considered Gaussian?
Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?
My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to login to her iPad, do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?
Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?
Why does sin(x) - sin(y) equal this?
How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?
Planeswalker Ability and Death Timing
Do I need to write [sic] when including a quotation with a number less than 10 that isn't written out?
How can the PCs determine if an item is a phylactery?
How can I separate the number from the unit in argument?
Shortening a title without changing its meaning
Can a PhD from a non-TU9 German university become a professor in a TU9 university?
Is the offspring between a demon and a celestial possible? If so what is it called and is it in a book somewhere?
Why did the Drakh emissary look so blurred in S04:E11 "Lines of Communication"?
How can a day be of 24 hours?
Is it possible to make a 9x9 table fit within the default margins?
Incomplete cube
Gauss' Posthumous Publications?
Is this a new Fibonacci Identity?
Can I cast Thunderwave and be at the center of its bottom face, but not be affected by it?
Avoiding the "not like other girls" trope?
What difference does it make matching a word with/without a trailing whitespace?
Can you teleport closer to a creature you are Frightened of?
How dangerous is XSS
Is the 21st century's idea of “freedom of speech” based on precedent?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCan U.S. states establish state religions?Does the 1st Amendment restrict executive actions?Blasphemy in the Context of Freedom of SpeechWhat first amendment limits apply to law against “parading or demonstrating?”What are the limits on categorising someone's statements as 'hatred' in regard to freedom of speech?Arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights CommissionWhy are credit rating agencies in the US imune when giving false rating?How is the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” constitutional?In the United States, is Freedom of the Press absolute, or are there limits on it?Does the U.S. Constitution's First Ammendment protect false speech?
Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.
First 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.
Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment textualism
add a comment |
Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.
First 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.
Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment textualism
Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?
– user6726
3 hours ago
While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.
– ohwilleke
19 mins ago
add a comment |
Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.
First 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.
Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment textualism
Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.
First 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.
Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment textualism
united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment textualism
edited 1 hour ago
StephanS
asked 4 hours ago
StephanSStephanS
38619
38619
Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?
– user6726
3 hours ago
While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.
– ohwilleke
19 mins ago
add a comment |
Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?
– user6726
3 hours ago
While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.
– ohwilleke
19 mins ago
Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?
– user6726
3 hours ago
Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?
– user6726
3 hours ago
While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.
– ohwilleke
19 mins ago
While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.
– ohwilleke
19 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Trivially, yes
The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.
Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.
The government can limit your speech
The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.
They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."
It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress
Which is, in most cases, all government.
The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.
Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.
It only restricts government
The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.
It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38677%2fis-the-21st-centurys-idea-of-freedom-of-speech-based-on-precedent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Trivially, yes
The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.
Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.
The government can limit your speech
The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.
They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."
It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress
Which is, in most cases, all government.
The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.
Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.
It only restricts government
The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.
It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.
add a comment |
Trivially, yes
The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.
Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.
The government can limit your speech
The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.
They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."
It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress
Which is, in most cases, all government.
The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.
Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.
It only restricts government
The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.
It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.
add a comment |
Trivially, yes
The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.
Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.
The government can limit your speech
The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.
They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."
It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress
Which is, in most cases, all government.
The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.
Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.
It only restricts government
The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.
It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.
Trivially, yes
The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.
Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.
The government can limit your speech
The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.
They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."
It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress
Which is, in most cases, all government.
The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.
Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.
It only restricts government
The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.
It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Dale MDale M
55.9k23579
55.9k23579
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38677%2fis-the-21st-centurys-idea-of-freedom-of-speech-based-on-precedent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?
– user6726
3 hours ago
While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.
– ohwilleke
19 mins ago