First Amendment: Encouraging Lawbreaking And Free Speech Limits

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and expression from government interference. It prohibits Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. However, the First Amendment does not protect speech that incites people to break the law. In the case of United States v. Hansen, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a federal law against encouraging illegal immigration violates the First Amendment. This ruling sparked debate, with some arguing that the statute was overbroad and would criminalize a substantial amount of otherwise-legal speech.

The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites people to break the law

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

However, the First Amendment does not protect speech that incites people to break the law, including committing acts of violence. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not permit the advocacy of force or law violation that is likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action. This is known as the "incitement to imminent lawless action" exception to freedom of speech.

The Supreme Court has clarified that for speech to be considered unprotected incitement, it must be directed at a specific person or group, and there must be evidence or a rational inference that the speaker intended to produce imminent disorder. In other words, the speech must be likely to incite or produce imminent unlawful action.

The First Amendment also does not protect speech that constitutes a genuine threat, harassment, or defamation of a specific individual. Additionally, speech that is intended to disrupt the ordinary activities of an institution, such as a university, may be restricted by that institution.

While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it does not protect illegal conduct motivated by an individual's beliefs or opinions. There are certain types of speech, such as inciting people to break the law, that are not protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. It also protects the freedom to assemble peaceably and the right to petition the government. However, it is important to note that the First Amendment does not provide blanket protection for all forms of speech. There are certain exceptions and limitations to these protections, and one of them is incitement to violence or lawless action.

In the context of the First Amendment, incitement to violence refers to speech that creates an immediate risk of harm to another person. It is important to distinguish between a direct threat and incitement, where the latter involves encouraging another person to harm someone else. For speech to be considered incitement, it must meet an extremely high bar, and there must be an immediate and serious risk to a specific, identifiable person.

The Supreme Court has provided further clarification on this matter in several landmark cases. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect speech that incites or produces imminent lawless action and is likely to lead to such action. This ruling established the "imminent lawless action" test, which states that advocacy of force or criminal activity is not protected by the First Amendment if it meets two conditions: it is directed at inciting imminent lawless action, and it is likely to incite or produce such action.

In the case of Hess v. Indiana, the Court provided further clarification on the meaning of "imminent" in the context of incitement. The Court ruled that for speech to be considered incitement, it must be directed at a specific person or group, and there must be evidence that the speaker's words were intended to produce imminent disorder and were likely to do so. This ruling reinforced the principle that the First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence.

In summary, while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it does not extend to speech that incites violence or lawless action. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this interpretation, setting a high bar for what constitutes incitement and emphasising the importance of protecting individuals from harm.

The First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes harassment

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but there are limits to this protection. The First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes harassment.

Harassment law is a government-imposed restriction on speech, and the government is suppressing speech that it believes is harmful and offensive. This speech is not limited to threats or insults but includes political statements, religious proselytizing, art, and humor—material that is at the core of the First Amendment's protections.

Harassment law is a restriction imposed by the government, acting as sovereign. There is no "workplace speech" exception to the First Amendment. It is not a valid time, place, or manner restriction on speech. It is not justified by the "captive audience" doctrine. It cannot be supported by other arguments, such as using the fighting words exception, the government as an employer doctrine, or the speech-as-evidence principle.

Creating a new exception to the First Amendment would be tremendously dangerous for free speech, both in the workplace and out of it.

Harassment law is a content-based restriction on speech, suppressing some kinds of speech and not others. It is not justified by the desire to prevent psychological damage to the targets of the harassment. It is a viewpoint-based restriction, suppressing speech with a particular viewpoint.

The First Amendment protects speech even when the ideas put forth are thought to be illogical, offensive, immoral, or hateful. However, it does not protect speech that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment.

The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites people to break the law, including committing acts of violence. The Supreme Court has defined unprotected true threats as statements where the speaker intends to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group.

The First Amendment also does not protect obscene speech. Speech or materials may be deemed obscene and, therefore, unprotected if they meet the following threshold: they appeal to the "prurient" interest in sex, are patently offensive by community standards or applicable state law, and lack literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

In the context of higher education, harassing behavior (including speech) must be "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive" that it undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, effectively denying them equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities.

In summary, the First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes harassment. Harassment law is a government-imposed restriction on speech, and it suppresses core First Amendment-protected speech. The Supreme Court has defined what constitutes unprotected speech, including true threats, obscenity, and harassment.

The First Amendment does not protect speech that defames a specific individual

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, religion, and the press. It also protects the freedom to assemble peaceably and petition the government. However, the First Amendment does not protect speech that defames a specific individual. Defamation is a false statement that harms an individual's reputation and can be communicated in written (libel) or spoken (slander) form. To be considered defamatory, a statement must be an assertion of fact (rather than an opinion) and capable of being proven false.

The First Amendment protects public discourse and acknowledges the need to address the harm caused by defamation. Courts must balance protecting free speech with providing redress from reputational harm. For example, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court grappled with the intersection of free speech and defamation in the context of public officials. The case involved an advertisement published in The New York Times that criticised actions taken by public officials during the civil rights movement. L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel suit against the newspaper, claiming that the advertisement contained defamatory statements. The Supreme Court's ruling established the "actual malice" standard for defamation claims involving public officials or figures, requiring plaintiffs to prove that the statements were made with actual malice.

In the context of universities, freedom of speech does not mean that individuals can say whatever they want, wherever they want. Universities may restrict speech that falsely defames a specific individual, constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, or is likely to provoke imminent unlawful action. These exceptions have been interpreted narrowly by the Supreme Court and state and federal courts.

The First Amendment does not protect speech that is obscene

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. It also protects the freedom to assemble peaceably and petition the government. However, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is obscene.

Obscenity is a narrow category of sexually explicit expression that deals with a shameful or morbid interest in sex. It depicts sexual matters in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. While speech about sex and sexuality receives protection under the First Amendment, certain types of sexually explicit expression are not protected.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court has established a three-part test, known as the Miller test, to determine whether something is obscene and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. The test considers whether the material, taken as a whole:

• Appeals to the prurient interest in sex, or a morbid or unhealthy interest in sex, as defined by community standards;
• Depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as defined by applicable state law; and
• Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

All fifty states have individual laws controlling obscene material. Child pornography, for example, violates all three parts of the Miller test, and the creation and distribution of such material is a crime. Additionally, the government can restrict minors' access to pornography, and laws prohibiting adults from exposing minors to pornography have been ruled constitutional.

While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it does not protect speech that incites people to break the law or commit acts of violence. This includes speech that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment and is intended to provoke imminent unlawful action.

Frequently asked questions