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.

The First Amendment in the Digital Age

2020 ◽  
pp. 68-93
Author(s):  
Sam B. Edwards III
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Media ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Internet Access ◽  
The United States ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual

The United States is facing challenges in applying First Amendment principles from the 18th century to modern communications. This chapter examines cases where the government has intruded upon First Amendment rights. The first section examines when the government attempts to prevent protests by cutting internet access. This amounts to a digital gag and ear plugs for the protesters. Aside from cutting access to a single area, some governments have access to total internet “kill switches.” This allows unsurpassed censorship of speech. Now there are technical means installed in most phones that could allow governments to disconnect internet access at the individual phone. In the area of social media, the courts are struggling to identify what constitutes speech. For example, when is a “like” or a “wink” speech? Equally important, when can a political figure censor speech through blocking users on social media? These cases represent warning signs that the United States, just like other countries, is struggling to adapt eighteenth century legal principles to modern communication.

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.

Falling Back In

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noel Maurer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
Covert Action ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Government ◽  
Franklin Roosevelt ◽  
Second World

This chapter explores how the United States' return to the empire trap played out, starting with Franklin Roosevelt in Mexico through Eisenhower in Guatemala and faraway Iran. Under Franklin Roosevelt, the United States began to provide foreign aid (in the form of grants and loans) and rolled out perhaps the first case of modern covert action against the government of Cuba. Both tools were perfected during the Second World War, which saw the creation of entire agencies of government dedicated to providing official transfers and covertly manipulating the affairs of foreign states. In addition, the development of sophisticated trade controls allowed targeted action against the exports of other nations. For example, after 1948 the United States could attempt to influence certain Latin American governments by granting or withholding quotas for sugar.

scholarly journals Freedoms of Expression, Political Extremism and Seditious Speech in the United States Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence Part I

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-21
Author(s):  
Łukasz Machaj
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Political Extremism ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Sedition Act ◽  
The Government

FREEDOMS OF EXPRESSION, POLITICAL EXTREMISM AND SEDITIOUS SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S JURISPRUDENCE PART IThe article is the first part of a monothematic cycle devoted to the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of constitutional protection of seditious and pol­itically extremist speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The author discusses the historical origins of the problem in question, focusing particularly on the decisions and practical application of the so-called Sedition Act of 1798, a regulation which drastically restricted the freedom of public debate by de facto criminalising speech that was critical of the government. Although the normative act in question has never been the subject of the Supreme Court’s rulings, it was unequivocally condemned in the obiter dicta to several statements of reasons behind the Su­preme Court’s opinions and is commonly deemed unconstitutional in the doctrine.

The Growth of Press Freedoms in the United States since 9/11

2021 ◽  
pp. 200-214
Author(s):  
Jack Goldsmith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Number Frequency ◽  
Security Context ◽  
The Government

The number, frequency, and seriousness of leaks of classified information have grown sharply in the last two decades. The government has reacted to these leaks with several initiatives to stop or deter them. Journalists and their allies, in turn, have complained that these initiatives have narrowed press freedoms and damaged the First Amendment. This essay argues that the journalists are wrong. The last two decades have witnessed an unprecedented growth in press freedoms in the national security context and greater protection for journalists in their reporting of national security secrets. The recent indictment of Julian Assange is no violation of this norm and in many ways confirms it.

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.

Obscene Speech

2015 ◽  
pp. 50-54
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Student Speech ◽  
School Officials ◽  
Constitutional Protection

This chapter discusses obscene speech – a category of speech that the United States Supreme Court has excluded from First Amendment protection. The lack of constitutional protection for obscene speech provides an avenue for school officials to censor such student speech off-campus. The goal of the chapter is to provide an overview of the obscenity jurisprudence. The chapter also discusses examples of cases applying Supreme Court precedent on obscenity to censorship of off-campus student speech.

scholarly journals Historical Foundations and Enduring Fundamentals of American Religious Freedom

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-167
Author(s):  
John Witte
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
First Principles ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Pluralism ◽  
Church And State ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Constitutional Protection

The eighteenth-century American founders believed that religion is special and deserves special constitutional protection, and that all peaceable faiths must be drawn into the constitutional process and protection. The founders introduced six constitutional principles for the protection of religious freedom: freedom of conscience, free exercise of religion, religious pluralism, religious equality, separation of church and state, and no state establishment of religion. Since the 1940s, the United States Supreme Court has upheld these religious freedom principles in more than 170 cases, albeit unevenly of late. Moreover, in recent years religious freedom has come under sharp popular and academic attack, particularly as religious pathologies have come to light and religious freedom claims have clashed with sexual liberty claims. This article calls for a return to the first principles of religious freedom for all, at home and abroad, and for a new balance between religious freedom and other fundamental rights claims.

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.

Verán ustedes las chozas más humildes. El discurso de pobreza en la diplomacia pública cardenista dirigida a Estados Unidos

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-281
Author(s):  
Sylvia Dümmer Scheel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Poor ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Government ◽  
Lazaro Cardenas ◽  
The New Deal

El artículo analiza la diplomacia pública del gobierno de Lázaro Cárdenas centrándose en su opción por publicitar la pobreza nacional en el extranjero, especialmente en Estados Unidos. Se plantea que se trató de una estrategia inédita, que accedió a poner en riesgo el “prestigio nacional” con el fin de justificar ante la opinión pública estadounidense la necesidad de implementar las reformas contenidas en el Plan Sexenal. Aprovechando la inusual empatía hacia los pobres en tiempos del New Deal, se construyó una imagen específica de pobreza que fuera higiénica y redimible. Ésta, sin embargo, no generó consenso entre los mexicanos. This article analyzes the public diplomacy of the government of Lázaro Cárdenas, focusing on the administration’s decision to publicize the nation’s poverty internationally, especially in the United States. This study suggests that this was an unprecedented strategy, putting “national prestige” at risk in order to explain the importance of implementing the reforms contained in the Six Year Plan, in the face of public opinion in the United States. Taking advantage of the increased empathy felt towards the poor during the New Deal, a specific image of hygienic and redeemable poverty was constructed. However, this strategy did not generate agreement among Mexicans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document