Is the 21st century's idea of “freedom of speech” based on precedent?












1















Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.



First Amendment:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?










share|improve this question

























  • Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

    – user6726
    3 hours ago











  • While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

    – ohwilleke
    15 mins ago
















1















Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.



First Amendment:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?










share|improve this question

























  • Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

    – user6726
    3 hours ago











  • While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

    – ohwilleke
    15 mins ago














1












1








1








Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.



First Amendment:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?










share|improve this question
















Recently there has been a national debate in the U.S. about "Free Of Speech" and what rights citizens have under the first amendment. Reading the first amendment strictly through a textualist lens I can understand that Congress cannot limit our speech, but it does not say anything about companies limiting it, or even the Executive branch limiting our freedom of expression through an executive order.



First Amendment:




Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Is our modern day understanding of freedom of speech strictly based off precedent from court cases?







united-states freedom-of-speech first-amendment textualism






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







StephanS

















asked 4 hours ago









StephanSStephanS

38619




38619













  • Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

    – user6726
    3 hours ago











  • While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

    – ohwilleke
    15 mins ago



















  • Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

    – user6726
    3 hours ago











  • While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

    – ohwilleke
    15 mins ago

















Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

– user6726
3 hours ago





Do you consider the view that property owners have an obligation to provide a soapbox to be "our modern understanding" – i.e. what do you take to be that modern understanding?

– user6726
3 hours ago













While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

– ohwilleke
15 mins ago





While the narrow final question is within the scope of Law.SE, the overall thrust of the question about a national debate and our evolving cultures and norms has a better home at Politics.SE. Early precedents also drew on English legal and political culture in the 17th and 18th centuries which is also really better suited to Politics.SE or History.SE even though the sources used by the very early case law precedents does have a legal hook.

– ohwilleke
15 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














Trivially, yes



The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



The government can limit your speech



The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



Which is, in most cases, all government.



The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



It only restricts government



The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.






share|improve this answer


























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "617"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38677%2fis-the-21st-centurys-idea-of-freedom-of-speech-based-on-precedent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    Trivially, yes



    The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



    Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



    The government can limit your speech



    The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



    They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



    It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



    Which is, in most cases, all government.



    The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



    Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



    It only restricts government



    The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



    It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.






    share|improve this answer






























      3














      Trivially, yes



      The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



      Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



      The government can limit your speech



      The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



      They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



      It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



      Which is, in most cases, all government.



      The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



      Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



      It only restricts government



      The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



      It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.






      share|improve this answer




























        3












        3








        3







        Trivially, yes



        The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



        Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



        The government can limit your speech



        The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



        They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



        It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



        Which is, in most cases, all government.



        The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



        Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



        It only restricts government



        The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



        It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.






        share|improve this answer















        Trivially, yes



        The first amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.



        Every time there has been a dispute about what it means that has gone to court since then, the judgement of that court has established, overturned or clarified precedent - that's what common law courts do.



        The government can limit your speech



        The Supreme Court has recognized categories of speech which receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment. For example, inciting lawless actions, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, child pornography etc.



        They have also determined that it doesn't limit the government's power to impose reasonable time, place or manner restrictions on speech. As Justice Holmes put it in Schenck v. United States (1918), "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."



        It applies to parts of government which derive their power from Congress



        Which is, in most cases, all government.



        The executive actually has surprisingly little power granted by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2). All the other powers of the executive are technically delegated powers of Congress and are therefore subject to the first amendment.



        Similarly, only the Supreme Court draws its mandate without going through Congress Article III, Section 1) - all other courts are subject to first amendment restrictions.



        It only restricts government



        The limitation is a negative one on the US Congress (and through incorporation, the states). It does not, of itself, restrict private actors who are free to restrict speech however they want within their own property, including both physical and online spaces.



        It is open to the government to enact laws that would extend an affirmative right to free speech onto non-state actors (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins (1980)), however, the Federal government has not done so and neither have most states.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 hours ago

























        answered 3 hours ago









        Dale MDale M

        55.9k23579




        55.9k23579






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38677%2fis-the-21st-centurys-idea-of-freedom-of-speech-based-on-precedent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

            Single-Malt-Whisky

            Czorneboh