The Meaning of Freedom of Speech: First Amendment Freedoms from Wilson to FDR

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.

Download Full-text

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

10.31228/osf.io/5gtxu ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.”

Download Full-text

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

Świat i Słowo ◽

10.5604/01.3001.0015.6092 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Parades, Picketing, and Demonstrations

The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198827580.013.21 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

The Dominant American View of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Decade Leading Up to Ratification of the Federal Bill of Rights

The Revolution in Freedoms of Press and Speech ◽

10.1093/oso/9780197509197.003.0010 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 303-336

Author(s):

Wendell Bird

Keyword(s):

First Amendment ◽

Freedom Of Speech ◽

Source Material ◽

Freedom Of The Press ◽

Bill Of Rights ◽

Original Source ◽

Narrow View ◽

The Press ◽

Freedom Of Press ◽

The World

In the 1780s in America, the advocates of broad understandings of freedom of press and freedom of speech continued to argue, as “Junius Wilkes” did in 1782, that “[i]f a printer is liable to prosecution and restraint, for publishing pieces on public measures, conceived libellous, the liberty of the press is annihilated and ruined. . . . The danger is precisely the same to liberty, in punishing a person after the performance appears to the world, as in preventing its publication in the first instance. The doctrine of libels, is of pernicious consequence to the freedom of the press.” Many other essays in the 1780s showed the dominance of an expansive understanding of freedoms of press and speech, as did the declarations of rights of nine states. That was the context in which the First Amendment was adopted and ratified in 1789–1791. These conclusions about the prevalent and dominant understanding after the mid-1760s are flatly contrary to the narrow view of freedoms of press and speech stated by Blackstone and Mansfield, and restated by the neo-Blackstonians, who claim that the narrow understanding was not only predominant but exclusive through the ratification of the First Amendment and onward until 1798. This book’s conclusions are based on far more original source material than the neo-Blackstonians’ conclusions.

Download Full-text

The $12,000 Tweet: A Collision at the Intersection of Social Media and Copyright Law

Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership ◽

10.1177/1555458920964851 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 155545892096485

Author(s):

Barbara Hickman

Keyword(s):

Professional Development ◽

Social Media ◽

School Districts ◽

First Amendment ◽

Freedom Of Speech ◽

Copyright Law ◽

Federal Regulations ◽

Copyright Violation ◽

Legal Challenges ◽

Use Of Social Media

The use of social media may be contributing to violations of copyright law and can create legal challenges for school districts trying to balance ease of communication and First Amendment freedom of speech rights against compliance with federal regulations. In this case, a district is threatened with a lawsuit for copyright violation when one of the employees retweets a trademarked phrase. The case explores how school districts monitor copyright law, issues surrounding social media accounts for teachers and other employees such as coaches, the district’s liability for what is shared on those accounts, professional development, and possible board and district responses.

Download Full-text