The first amendment specifically states:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”
What this right basically means is that a person can say nearly anything (within limits as we will discuss later) without fear of being arrested, fined, or otherwise punished for what they are saying, or the manner in which they are saying it.
For example, I can publish in this blog nearly anything I want, such as calling the radical left a bunch of anti-religion, free-enterprise hating, communist/socialist-loving etc… etc… and there would be nothing they could do about it. However, they can also call us the radical religious fanatical, reich-wing, fascist, bigoted, etc… once again, there is nothing we can do about it. Of course, I would expect that neither of these phrases would be entirely accurate, nor applicable to anyone who reads (or writes) these blogs.
However, we must remember two things:
1. The sponsor does not have to accept or publish the comments/rhetoric; and
2. People cannot be forced to listen/read the comments/rhetoric.
Private organizations, such as the Topeka Capital-Journal, can make their own decision to print or not print any particular news item or topic. This also is a crucial part of freedom of speech and of the press. The government cannot mandate that any private organization publish anything, nor can they prevent (except in cases of national security) the publishing whatever they want.
The private right to publish anything is balanced by the inability to force people to purchase or read what is published. If the readers do not like it, they simply will not buy it.
The same applies to television. We have various options for our local news. If the local newscasters do not provide a newscast worth seeing, we simply change the channel, and they lose their source of revenue. If they want to keep their revenue up, they must provide the news content that will attract viewers to their station.
Despite the right to freedom of speech and of the press, and the natural balance provided by the free enterprise system, there are certain times that speech can be limited either by law or by rules/regulations. Here are some of the types of situations where speech can reasonably be limited:
1. Shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater when no fire is actually present;
2. Communicating a threat against another person;
3. Talking about terrorism or attacks in highly sensitive places (i.e. start talking about a ‘bomb’ inside of an airport and see what happens);
4. Clothing deemed “inappropriate” in a specified setting, such as a school, private meeting, etc…;
5. Abusive speech in most situations;
6. Suggestive or harassing speech in business situations; and
7. Intentionally malicious statements, either verbal or written.
In general, most speech that indicates intent to cause harm, or is intended to incite others to cause harm to another person, or in which a reasonable person would expect harm to come to another person, then that speech is limited or prohibited. In the case of shouting “fire” in a theater, any reasonable person would expect this to result in a general panic among the patrons of the theater and a rush for people to escape. In the rush to escape the perceived threat of fire, people may be injured or even killed.
The second situation where speech can be limited is in closed environments, such as schools or businesses. Prohibitions exist in some places for students to wear clothing with suggestive or provocative slogans, or clothes recognized as “gang colors.” Additionally, most companies generally prohibit sexually suggestive speech or “hate” speech. The motive behind these types of rules is to ensure an environment amenable to people of all types, and to limit the amount of disruption caused by provocative speech or displays. The US Supreme Court has ruled at various times that organizations have the ability to control speech within their own environs.
The last situation where free speech can be curtailed is when the things said are lies meant to cause some type of harm to a person. The harm in this case is not physical harm, but includes harm to the reputation of a person, caused an economic loss to the person, or caused some other type of quantifiable harm to the person. However, this speech is controlled only under certain conditions:
1. The information must be false or reasonably known to be false by the person/entity that makes/publishes the statement;
2. The person/entity that makes/publishes the statement does so in a malicious manner; and
3. There must have been a quantifiable harm done to the person maligned.
On a closing note, the right to free speech is one of the most important rights granted to Americans by the Constitution. We are almost unique in the world in permitting almost any type of speech or expression. However, the right to free speech does not guarantee that others using their free speech will not offend you. If what a person says offends you, you can choose to ignore it, or you can use your own right to free speech to defend yourself. Whichever option you take, it is your choice to be offended… or not.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”
What this right basically means is that a person can say nearly anything (within limits as we will discuss later) without fear of being arrested, fined, or otherwise punished for what they are saying, or the manner in which they are saying it.
For example, I can publish in this blog nearly anything I want, such as calling the radical left a bunch of anti-religion, free-enterprise hating, communist/socialist-loving etc… etc… and there would be nothing they could do about it. However, they can also call us the radical religious fanatical, reich-wing, fascist, bigoted, etc… once again, there is nothing we can do about it. Of course, I would expect that neither of these phrases would be entirely accurate, nor applicable to anyone who reads (or writes) these blogs.
However, we must remember two things:
1. The sponsor does not have to accept or publish the comments/rhetoric; and
2. People cannot be forced to listen/read the comments/rhetoric.
Private organizations, such as the Topeka Capital-Journal, can make their own decision to print or not print any particular news item or topic. This also is a crucial part of freedom of speech and of the press. The government cannot mandate that any private organization publish anything, nor can they prevent (except in cases of national security) the publishing whatever they want.
The private right to publish anything is balanced by the inability to force people to purchase or read what is published. If the readers do not like it, they simply will not buy it.
The same applies to television. We have various options for our local news. If the local newscasters do not provide a newscast worth seeing, we simply change the channel, and they lose their source of revenue. If they want to keep their revenue up, they must provide the news content that will attract viewers to their station.
Despite the right to freedom of speech and of the press, and the natural balance provided by the free enterprise system, there are certain times that speech can be limited either by law or by rules/regulations. Here are some of the types of situations where speech can reasonably be limited:
1. Shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater when no fire is actually present;
2. Communicating a threat against another person;
3. Talking about terrorism or attacks in highly sensitive places (i.e. start talking about a ‘bomb’ inside of an airport and see what happens);
4. Clothing deemed “inappropriate” in a specified setting, such as a school, private meeting, etc…;
5. Abusive speech in most situations;
6. Suggestive or harassing speech in business situations; and
7. Intentionally malicious statements, either verbal or written.
In general, most speech that indicates intent to cause harm, or is intended to incite others to cause harm to another person, or in which a reasonable person would expect harm to come to another person, then that speech is limited or prohibited. In the case of shouting “fire” in a theater, any reasonable person would expect this to result in a general panic among the patrons of the theater and a rush for people to escape. In the rush to escape the perceived threat of fire, people may be injured or even killed.
The second situation where speech can be limited is in closed environments, such as schools or businesses. Prohibitions exist in some places for students to wear clothing with suggestive or provocative slogans, or clothes recognized as “gang colors.” Additionally, most companies generally prohibit sexually suggestive speech or “hate” speech. The motive behind these types of rules is to ensure an environment amenable to people of all types, and to limit the amount of disruption caused by provocative speech or displays. The US Supreme Court has ruled at various times that organizations have the ability to control speech within their own environs.
The last situation where free speech can be curtailed is when the things said are lies meant to cause some type of harm to a person. The harm in this case is not physical harm, but includes harm to the reputation of a person, caused an economic loss to the person, or caused some other type of quantifiable harm to the person. However, this speech is controlled only under certain conditions:
1. The information must be false or reasonably known to be false by the person/entity that makes/publishes the statement;
2. The person/entity that makes/publishes the statement does so in a malicious manner; and
3. There must have been a quantifiable harm done to the person maligned.
On a closing note, the right to free speech is one of the most important rights granted to Americans by the Constitution. We are almost unique in the world in permitting almost any type of speech or expression. However, the right to free speech does not guarantee that others using their free speech will not offend you. If what a person says offends you, you can choose to ignore it, or you can use your own right to free speech to defend yourself. Whichever option you take, it is your choice to be offended… or not.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
No comments:
Post a Comment