Parades, Picketing, and Demonstrations

2021 ◽  
pp. 368-388
Author(s):  
Timothy Zick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Civic Engagement ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Collective Modes ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
The Government

This chapter focuses on parades, pickets, and demonstrations, which are forms of civic engagement that communicate aspirations, ideas, and, quite often, dissenting opinions to fellow citizens, governments, and broader audiences. For many, gathering together in public, in these and similar forms, is a cathartic act of self-fulfilment and a demonstration of solidarity. Collective action in the form of public gatherings is an integral part of any system of communicative freedom. In the United States, in addition to the freedom of speech, rights to ‘peaceably assemble’ and to ‘petition the Government for a redress of grievances’ are explicitly provided for in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Ultimately, parades, pickets, and demonstrations all further basic expressive values relating to self-governance, the search for truth, and individual autonomy. Nevertheless, Americans seeking to engage in collective modes of expression face a variety of doctrinal, legal, social, and political challenges. The chapter then details how digital connectivity has facilitated expressive opportunities by connecting individuals and supporting new forms of associational activity.

scholarly journals If Words Could Kill: Can the Government Regulate Any Online Speech?

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Pontzer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Internet Media ◽  
Gradual Evolution ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Government

From the inception of American jurisprudence, an individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution 1 has been given some of the strongest protection available.2 The most celebrated legal minds in American history have consistently advocated the necessity of an open and honest exchange of ideas as fundamental to democratic society,3 even when the ideas expressed may be unpopular or of little value.4 Nonetheless, it is equally well-established that not all speech is protected, particularly where the speech in question poses a threat to public order.5 Although First Amendment law continues to evolve, the media available to Americans wishing to express their ideas seem to be evolving exponentially faster, particularly in the forum provided by the Internet.6 Indeed, the vast expansion and availability of Internet media seem to continually outstrip the much more gradual evolution of the law, not only in the United States but worldwide.

scholarly journals EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION AFTER DALE

2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-214
Author(s):  
David E. Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Practical Consequence ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The right to join with other people to promote a particular outlook, known as the right of expressive association, is a necessary adjunct to the right of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Freedom of speech would be of little practical consequence if the government could suppress ideas by bluntly prohibiting individuals from gathering with others who share their perspective. Freedom of expression must consist of more than the right to talk to oneself.

“[T]his most unnecessary, unjust, and disgraceful war”

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 82-103
Author(s):  
Juhani Rudanko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
War Of 1812 ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Sedition Act ◽  
The Face ◽  
Federalist Party

This article focuses on face-threatening attacks on the Madison Administration during the War of 1812. The discussion is framed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with the language of the Amendment protecting freedom of speech, and also by the Sedition Act of 1798, which, if it had been made permanent, would have seriously curtailed freedom of speech. The War of 1812 was intensely unpopular among members of the Federalist Party, and their newspapers did not shy away from criticising it. This article investigates writings published in the Boston Gazette and the Connecticut Mirror during the war. It is shown that the criticism took different forms, ranging from accusing President Madison of “untruths” to painting a picture of what was claimed to be the unmitigated hopelessness of his position, both nationally and internationally, and that the criticism also included harsh personal attacks on his character and motives. It is suggested that some of the attacks may be characterised as exhibiting aggravated impoliteness. The article also considers President Madison’s attitude in the face of the attacks.

scholarly journals Discarding Dariano: The Heckler's Veto and a New School Speech Doctrine

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien M. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New School ◽  
The Press ◽  
Spoken Words

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Of all of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, perhaps none inspire the level of interest and debate among both scholars and laypersons as the freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and it has long been held that “speech” encompasses not merely spoken words butany conduct which is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Where to limit the freedom of speech? Analysis in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the fighting words doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256
Author(s):  
Karolina Palka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Socialist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Socialist Party Of America ◽  
The Right

This article is about the limits of the right to free speech. The first section provides a brief introduction to this topic, primarily in the context of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second section describes the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which was fundamental to the topic of this paper because the United States Supreme Court created the so-called "fighting words" doctrine based on it. In the next two sections, two court cases are presented that perfectly demonstrate the limits of the right to free speech in the United States: Snyder v. Phelps and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. The fifth part shows the right to freedom of speech in the context of Polish civil, criminal, and constitutional law, as well as acts of international law binding on Poland. The last part is a short summary.

Freedom of Speech and Assembly in the Digital Age

2014 ◽  
pp. 160-175
Author(s):  
Sam B. Edwards III
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Digital Revolution ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Government

The United States is facing challenges in applying First Amendment principles from the eighteenth century to modern communications. Speech and assembly in the eighteenth century was extremely limited when compared to speech now. This chapter examines two cases where the government has intruded upon fundamental rights contained in the First Amendment. In the first case, a government, in an effort to stop a protest, cut off all wireless mobile and Internet communications. This amounted to a digital gag and ear plugs for the protesters. In this case, the responsible government officials did not even contemplate that this might violate the fundamental rights of the protesters. In the second case, government employees were fired for using Facebook to “like” the page of a political candidate. The trial court ruled that “liking” on Facebook was not speech and therefore did not garner constitutional protection. These two cases represent warning signs that the United States, just like other countries, is struggling to adapt eighteenth century legal principles to modern communication. The digital revolution is happening in the United States and the courts will eventually have to develop a new set of rules based on the principles in the First Amendment.

scholarly journals Celebrating the Secular

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 202-206
Author(s):  
Amanda Lohrey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Thing ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Moral Vision ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
Thing In Itself ◽  
The Law

On 4 November 2004 I read a report in the Sydney Morning Herald that I found genuinely shocking, a statement by Cardinal George Pell, of the Catholic diocese of Sydney, on what’s wrong with democracy. This report was of a speech given to the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in the United States. In it, Dr Pell told his audience that liberal democracy is a world of ‘empty secularism’ that is over-focused on ‘individual autonomy’. The problem with democracy, said the Cardinal, quoting John Paul II, is that it is not a good thing in itself; its value depends on the moral vision that it serves, and a secular democracy is lacking in moral vision. If democracy is not a good thing in and of itself, then why have we sent troops to Iraq to enable it? And what about the principle of equality before the law? Freedom of conscience? Freedom of speech and of action? Responsibility for community? Sounds like a moral vision to me.

A Matter of Context: Casey and the Constitutionality of Compelled Physician Speech

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott W. Gaylord
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Strict Scrutiny ◽  
Legitimate Interest ◽  
Single Standard ◽  
The Government

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Given the myriad ways in which freedom of speech can be implicated, the United States Supreme Court has not adopted a single standard for reviewing First Amendment speech claims. With respect to compelled speech, the Court has instructed that “context” is dispositive. When the government attempts to “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” the Court applies strict scrutiny. When, however, “the State has a significant role to play in regulating” a particular context, government-compelled disclosures may be subject to a lower standard of review: “When a state regulation implicates First Amendment rights, the court must balance those interests against the State’s legitimate interest in regulating the activity in question.”

scholarly journals Elonis v. United States: The Doctrine of True Threats: Protecting Our Ever-Shrinking First Amendment Rights in the New Era of Communication

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-223
Author(s):  
Mary Margaret Roark
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Era ◽  
The Public ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The U.S

The First Amendment protects one of our most precious rights as citizens of the United States—the freedom of speech. Such protection has withstood the test of time, even safeguarding speech that much of the population would find distasteful. There is one form of speech which cannot be protected: the true threat. However, the definition of what constitutes a "true threat" has expanded since its inception. In the new era of communication—where most users post first and edit later—the First Amendment protection we once possessed has been eroded as more and more speech is considered proscribable as a "true threat." In order to adequately protect both the public at large and our individual right to free speech, courts should analyze a speaker’s subjective intent before labeling speech a "true threat." Though many courts have adopted an objective, reasonable listener test, the U.S. Supreme Court now has the opportunity, in deciding Elonis v. United States, to take a monumental step in protecting the First Amendment right to free speech. By holding that the speaker’s subjective intent to threaten is necessary for a true threat conviction, the Court will restore the broad protection afforded by the First Amendment and repair years of erosion caused by an objective approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document