Freedom of Speech

“congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech”

our rights are not absolute — laws can place restrictions on speech

preferred position doctrine

courts favor protecting speech; any restrictions must be as limited as possible

“clear and present danger” test

states that speech that incites harm or disrupts public order can be limited

time, place, and manner doctrine

speech can be limited based on when, where, or how it was expressed

must be content-neutral restrictions cannot favor or target specif. viewpoints

must serve signif. public interest — such as public safety, order, or preventing disruptions

.categories of protected speech

1. political speech and speech on public issues

2. symbolic speech

3. hate speech

why is the court reluctant to limit speech even it is hateful/offensive

because they fear the potential consequences of setting such a precedent

unprotected speech: intended to incite “imminent lawless action”

and “likely to produce such a result”

unprotected speech: defamation

dif to win plaintiffs must prove the statement is false and demonstrates “actual malice” — meaning the speaker/writer knowingly spread false info w/ reckless disregard for truth

unprotected speech: libel

written lies that damages a person’s reputation

unprotected speech: slander

spokes lies that harm a person’s reputation

unprotected speech: obscenity

based on community standards — what is considered obscene can vary greatly depending on location