Free Speech in the United States

1942 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 265
Author(s):  
Charles Fairman ◽  
Zechariah Chafee,
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States

Alternative Pluralisms: Israeli and American Constitutionalism in Comparative Perspective

1989 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary J. Jacobsohn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Institutional Evolution ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Alternative Models ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
New Politics ◽  
American Model

Constitutional transplantation, the process by which the constitutional practice of one society becomes an important source for the legal development of another, has figured importantly in the institutional evolution of new politics. In this article, I examine the constitutional experience of Israel and the United States, two societies that share a language of jurisprudential discourse while differing significantly in a number of polically relevant ways. In particular, the fact that both societies can be described as pluralistic only conceals the fact that they represent alternative models of pluralism that may render problematic the the transferablity of constitutional outcomes from one place to another. Thus, the literature of modern constitutionalism, which has tended to emphasize the rights-based liberal ethic of individualism, is arguably more compatible with an American model in which the principles of the “procedural republic” are more unproblematically embraced. To pursue this question, I look at two issues—the advisability of adopting a bill of rights and the appropriate stance of the regime on the question of free speech—that allow us to reflect upon the limits and possibilities of constitutional transplantation.

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.

United States: Exceptional Freedoms, Fabricated Fears

Hate Spin ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cherian George
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
High Degree

The United States has exceptionally strong Constitutional protections for free speech, but also for religious freedom. This chapter considers how this unique legal framework affects hate spin in the country. It finds that although hate speech can be expressed with a high degree of impunity, strong anti-discrimination laws limit the harms caused by such speech. Hate spin can, nonetheless, succeed in fostering fear and cultivating prejudice against minorities. The chapter examines how a network of anti-Muslim activists have used hate spin to campaign against mosque building, to oppose multi-cultural textbooks, and to introduce legislation protecting states from the fabricated threat of encroaching Muslim law. Beyond their stated goals, which may be frustrated by courts, these campaigns often have the symbolic purpose of spreading Islamophobia.

School-Sponsored Speech

2015 ◽  
pp. 97-107
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Student Speech ◽  
Speech Clause

This chapter examines the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) case – the United States Supreme Court's third review of students' speech rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It discusses the test created in the case for analyzing when schools can regulate students' speech. This test, referred to as the Hazelwood test (also known as the Kuhlmeier test) authorizes schools to censor school-sponsored student speech. The chapter discusses the Supreme Court's approach to student speech in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) case. The ultimate goal of the chapter is to analyze the case in order to determine if it authorizes schools to censor students' speech while they are outside the schoolhouse gate.

Lewd, Vulgar, Plainly-Offensive, and Obscene Speech

2015 ◽  
pp. 84-96
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
School District ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Student Speech ◽  
Free Speech Rights ◽  
Speech Clause

This chapter focuses on the Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) case – the United States Supreme Court's second review of students' speech rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It discusses the test created in the case for determining when schools can regulate students' speech. This test, referred to as the Bethel test or the Fraser test authorizes schools to censor students' speech if the speech is vulgar, lewd, plainly offensive or obscene. The chapter also discusses the Supreme Court's decision on the scope of students' free speech rights. The ultimate goal of the chapter is to analyze the Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser case in order to determine if it empowers schools to censor off-campus student speech.

scholarly journals The Politics of Campus Free Speech in Canada and the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-30
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Newman*
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Liberal Arts ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Free Inquiry ◽  
Research And Education

Ontario Premier Doug Ford and US President Donald Trump have something in common: both recently issued directives to colleges and universities intended to promote free speech on campus. Premier Ford’s came first. In August 2018, shortly after winning the provincial election, Ford required all colleges and universities in the province to devise policies upholding free speech on their campuses in line with a minimum standard prescribed by his government. The policies were to be in place no later than January 1, 2019. Failure to comply would result in a reduction of operating grant funding from the province. President Trump’s executive order concerning “free inquiry” on American campuses was issued in March 2019. The order states that it is the policy of the federal government to encourage institutions of higher learning “to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions.”1 Colleges and universities that fail to do so are threatened with the loss of federal research and education grants.   * Associate Professor, Department of Politics, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University where he teaches political theory.1 Andy Thomason, “Here’s What Trump’s Executive Order on Free Speech Says”, The Chronicle of Higher Education (21 March 2019), online: <chronicle.com/article/Heres-Wat-Trumps-Executive/245943?cid+bn&utm_medium=en&cid=bn>. An executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States in his capacity as head of the executive branch and has the force of law. Trump’s executive order on campus free speech is reproduced in its entirety online.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document