Welcome to Senior Journalism
This is where you will find all your assignments every day. You may access this directly at
sotajournalism20-21.blogspot.com or though the daily link in google classroom. You will share your google documents by typing in 2006630, which will bring up my name.
Five parrots have been removed from public view at a British wildlife park after they started swearing at customers.
The foul-mouthed birds were split up after they launched a number of different expletives at visitors and staff just days after being donated to Lincolnshire Wildlife Park in eastern England.
"It just went ballistic, they were all swearing," the venue's chief executive Steve Nichols told CNN Travel on Tuesday. "We were a little concerned about the children."
"They literally, within a very short period of time, starting swearing at each other," Nichols said. "'F**k off' is the most common one," he explained -- "it's a very easy one for them to learn" -- but the birds would utter "anything you can think of."
Most customers enjoyed the talent once the parrots were displayed. "The visitors were giving them as much back as what they were giving to them," Nichols said.
But concern for younger customers forced staff to split up the birds and temporarily remove them from the park's public areas. Staff now hope the birds' language will become more family-friendly now that they have been separated.
In class today: 1) article on bias from Psychology Today
2) self-bias assessment. Take your time with this. Copy onto a doc to take. Make sure to hold on to this for tomorrow. REFLECT and consider what you read in the article.
You will used this for a short reflective piece tomorrow I
Bias
A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful—like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. But biases are often based on stereotypes, rather than actual knowledge of an individual or circumstance. Whether positive or negative, such cognitive shortcuts can result in prejudgments that lead to rash decisions or discriminatory practices.
What is bias?
Bias is a natural inclination for or against an idea, object, group, or individual. It is often learned and is highly dependent on variables like a person’s socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, educational background, etc. At the individual level, bias can negatively impact someone’s personal and professional relationships; at a societal level, it can lead to unfair persecution of a group, such as the Holocaust and slavery.
What causes people to be biased?
Starting at a young age, people will discriminate between those who are like them, their “ingroup,” and those who are not like them, “their outgroup.” On the plus side, they can gain a sense of identity and safety. However, taken to the extreme, this categorization can foster an “us-versus-them” mentality and lead to harmful prejudice.
What is an unconscious or implicit bias?
People are naturally biased—they like certain things and dislike others, often without being fully conscious of their prejudice. Bias is acquired at a young age, often as a result of one’s upbringing. This unconscious bias becomes problematic when it causes an individual or a group to treat others poorly as a result of their gender, ethnicity, race, or other factors.
Can a person be unbiased?
Generally, no. Everyone has some degree of bias. It’s human nature to assign judgment based on first impressions. Also, most people have a lifetime of conditioning by schools, religious institutions, their families of origin, and the media. However, by reflecting critically on judgments and being aware of blind spots, individuals can avoid stereotyping and acting on harmful prejudice.
How can you reduce bias?
Telling people to “suppress prejudice” or racism often has the opposite effect. When people are trained to notice prejudiced or racist thoughts without trying to push them away, they are able to make a deliberate choice about how they behave towards others as a result. This can lead toless discrimination and reduced bias over time.
Biases and Cognitive Errors
A category of biases, known as cognitive biases, are
repeated patterns of thinking that can lead to inaccurate
or unreasonable conclusions. Cognitive biases may help
people make quicker decisions, but those decisions aren’t always accurate.
Some common reasons why include flawed memory, scarce attention,
natural limits on the brain’s ability to process information, emotional input,
social pressures, and even aging. When assessing research—or even one's
own thoughts and behaviors—it’s important to be aware of cognitive biases
and attempt to counter their effects whenever possible.
What is confirmation bias?
Confirmation bias, also known as “motivated reasoning,” refers to the
brain’s tendency to search for and focus on information that supports
what someone already believes, while ignoring facts that go against
beliefs, despite their relevance.
Bias audit Name___________________ Mark your response to the following:
The strange case of the man who died after eating too much licorice
By Francesca Giuliani-Hoffman, CNN
It's hard to exercise restraint when eating candy. For licorice lovers, indulging sparingly could actually be lifesaving.
A study published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine says a 54-year-old man died as a result of eating too much licorice.
The man, a construction worker from Massachusetts, lost consciousness inside a fast-food restaurant and was taken to a hospital, where he died the next day.
Doctors wrote that he had "a poor diet, consisting primarily of several packages of candy daily," and that three weeks before, he switched from eating fruit-flavored soft candy to licorice candy, which contained glycyrrhizic acid.
Glycyrrhizic acid, or glycyrrhizin, a sweetening compound derived from licorice root, can cause a drop in potassium levels in the body, which in turn may cause high blood pressure, swelling, abnormal heart rhythms and even heart failure, according to the FDA.
"While black licorice is safe in small quantities, it can be dangerous when consumed in large amounts or even in more moderate amounts on a regular basis," Dr. Jacqueline Boykin Henson told CNN.
The patient was not suffering from underlying conditions that would have had an impact on what happened to him, Dr. Boykin Henson noted.
"While his diet consisted largely of black licorice, he was active and otherwise generally healthy," she said.
The negative effects of eating too much licorice are reversible, and wane when consumption is interrupted. A return to normal potassium levels may take one to two weeks.
"Individuals who enjoy black licorice should be cognizant of these potential health effects and should be conscious of the amount they are eating and how often," Dr. Boykin Henson said.
*****************************************************Of note, tonight is the first of three debates between Biden and Trump. According to the news this morning, "it’s shaping up to be a historic political donnybrook," (donnybrook- political uproar). What will they talk about? The candidates' records, the Supreme Court, Covid-19, the economy, race and violence, and election integrity.
What makes a good journalist?
Curiosity, critical thinking, a hunger for news, a burning desire to tell a good story, regardless of the medium or platform, and a dedication to accuracy, fairness, balance and media ethics...” (Brewer).
Housekeeping: I am missing lots of the rethink responses from last week, when you first gave your opinion prior to reading in more in detail about the First Amendment.
Below you will find five cases involving the First Amendment. Your job is to be the judge and jury and decide who wins and why.
Choose one case and in a paragraph of no fewer than 150 words, write your ruling and argument. Make sure that you weave in text when needed. Make sure to support your argument based upon the First Amendment. I have included the previous amendment reading from last week as a reference.
This is due to me by midnight tonight, unless you receive extended time. The zoom is open, but it is the expectation that you will use class time to organize your thoughts and write. Ask one us, if you have questions.
1.A well-known and controversial big-city lawyer was successful in having sexual assault charges dropped against two school basketball players. The lawyer had argued that the victim had consented to the sexual encounter with the players. The newspaper wants to run an editorial condemning the court’s decision, saying that the players’ acts should not have been so easily excused. The editorial details some of the lawyer’s courtroom argument casting responsibility on the woman, a position that the editors find deplorable. They plan to call the lawyer “a scumbag” in the editorial. If this editorial is printed, who would win the ensuing court case – the newspaper or the lawyer?
2.Students plan to wear special placards in protest of a recent controversial school policy that outlaws any religious ornament within the school. The school suspends the students who wear the placards. The students sue in response. Who wins?
3.A paper for a public high school wants to run a feature story on the average salaries of public officials in the area. The reporter asks the treasurer of the school district for information regarding the salaries of the teachers in the district. The treasurer refuses, saying that it is not appropriate for high school students to know the salaries of their teachers. The students sue for the records. Who wins?
4.A student newspaper wants to run an article on drug use in the athletes in the school. To gather details, the journalist hides a tape recorder in her pocket and goes into the female locker room to gather information without the athletes knowing she is there to gather information. She uses quotes and information in the article that she gathered from the locker room. An investigation follows and the student athletes are suspended for drug use. The athletes sue the paper. Who wins?
5.A student magazine regularly published the satirical work of a popular student cartoonist. In one issue, the cartoonist took on the topic of youth pregnancy. To do so, he used characters from a popular national comic strip involving a group of children, duplicating them detail by detail but with one notable difference. In his cartoon, a girl character was pregnant, one of the boys was the father and their pet was the local abortionist. The author of the cartoon strip sued. Who wins?
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.
Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.
The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.
The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.
There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.
1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:
a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan(1964).
b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States(1969).
c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).
d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.
e. Child pornography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).
f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council(1976).
Outside these narrow categories of “low” value speech, most other content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally been very reluctant to expand the list of “low” value categories of speech.
2. The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government. For example, the speech of government employees and of students in public schools can be restricted, even based on content, when their speech is incompatible with their status as public officials or students. A teacher in a public school, for example, can be punished for encouraging students to experiment with illegal drugs, and a government employee who has access to classified information generally can be prohibited from disclosing that information.Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).
3. The government can also restrict speech under a less demanding standard when it does so without regard to the content or message of the speech. Content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large signs (which can distract drivers and clutter the landscape), are generally constitutional as long as they are “reasonable.” Because such laws apply neutrally to all speakers without regard to their message, they are less threatening to the core First Amendment concern that government should not be permitted to favor some ideas over others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC(1994). But not all content-neutral restrictions are viewed as reasonable; for example, a law prohibiting all demonstrations in public parks or all leafleting on public streets would violate the First Amendment. Schneider v. State (1939).
Courts have not always been this protective of free expression. In the nineteenth century, for example, courts allowed punishment of blasphemy, and during and shortly after World War I the Supreme Court held that speech tending to promote crime—such as speech condemning the military draft or praising anarchism—could be punished. Schenck v. United States (1919). Moreover, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Gitlow v. New York (1925).
But starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began to read the First Amendment more broadly, and this trend accelerated in the 1960s. Today, the legal protection offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.
Geoffrey R. Stone is Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
You can read more from each author on our Interactive Constitution project on this topic, as they offer viewpoints beyond this common interpretation: Fixing Free Speech By Geoffrey R. Stone | Frontiers For Free Speech By Eugene Volokh
Stone, Geoffrey, and Eugene Volkh. “A Common Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org, constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-common-interpretation-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press.
In class: Yesterday, we reviewed the article on the First Amendment. I asked you to be prepared to orally or in the chat repond to the questions below. We will begin with reviewing those questions. Seveal folks sent me their ideas. Thank you. Today everyone else may express them orally or on the chat, where Ms. Sweet will share them out. This is a class participation grade.
Having completed the reading (another copy below) that gives a succinct interpretation of the First Amendment, we are going to apply your understanding to contempory issue of Black Lives Matter.
Assignment based upon the hypothetical situations from the Monday / Tuesday. Another copy below.Choose two of the responses from Monday's blog and write a minimum of 75 word response for each, explaining how what you now understand about the First Amendment has changed your initial response. Due to me by no later than midnight on Saturday, with the exception of those who are designated to receive extended time. (I need time to read these on Sunday!)
Rochester June 5, 2020
For each of the following questions, refer specifically to the text you read.
1. Why are Black Lives Matter allowed to protest?
2. Under the First Amendment, what rules must the protesters follow?
3. After watching this clip, in what ways do you observe the First Amendment being applied?
4. What actions might occur that would require police interference?
A Common Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press
As part of the National Constitution Center’sInteractive Constitution project, leading scholars across the legal and philosophical spectrum find common ground on the Constitution’s articles,amendments,and provisions. In this essay from September 2015, Geoffrey R. Stonefrom the University of Chicago Law School and Eugene Volokh from the UCLA School of Law say the legal protection today offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.
Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.
The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.
The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.
There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.
1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:
a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan(1964).
b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States(1969).
c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).
d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.
e. Child pornography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).
f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council(1976).
Outside these narrow categories of “low” value speech, most other content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally been very reluctant to expand the list of “low” value categories of speech.
2. The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government. For example, the speech of government employees and of students in public schools can be restricted, even based on content, when their speech is incompatible with their status as public officials or students. A teacher in a public school, for example, can be punished for encouraging students to experiment with illegal drugs, and a government employee who has access to classified information generally can be prohibited from disclosing that information.Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).
3. The government can also restrict speech under a less demanding standard when it does so without regard to the content or message of the speech. Content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large signs (which can distract drivers and clutter the landscape), are generally constitutional as long as they are “reasonable.” Because such laws apply neutrally to all speakers without regard to their message, they are less threatening to the core First Amendment concern that government should not be permitted to favor some ideas over others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC(1994). But not all content-neutral restrictions are viewed as reasonable; for example, a law prohibiting all demonstrations in public parks or all leafleting on public streets would violate the First Amendment. Schneider v. State (1939).
Courts have not always been this protective of free expression. In the nineteenth century, for example, courts allowed punishment of blasphemy, and during and shortly after World War I the Supreme Court held that speech tending to promote crime—such as speech condemning the military draft or praising anarchism—could be punished. Schenck v. United States (1919). Moreover, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Gitlow v. New York (1925).
But starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began to read the First Amendment more broadly, and this trend accelerated in the 1960s. Today, the legal protection offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.
Geoffrey R. Stone is Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
You can read more from each author on our Interactive Constitution project on this topic, as they offer viewpoints beyond this common interpretation: Fixing Free Speech By Geoffrey R. Stone | Frontiers For Free Speech By Eugene Volokh
Stone, Geoffrey, and Eugene Volkh. “A Common Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org, constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-common-interpretation-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press.
************************************
Freedom of Speech Essay Analysis Questions Instructions: Answer the following questions. Feel free to use the sentence starters in italics, but make sure to use your own words in your answers. If you want to use exact language from the essay, use quotation marks – but only quote short phrases, not whole sentences.
1. According to the essay, why is it important to protect speech, even if that speech is unpopular? Provide evidence. Laws that restrict speech are “thought to be especially problematic because” ...
2. According to the essay, what kinds of actions are included in the term “speech” as it is found in the First Amendment? Provide evidence. “The Supreme Court has interpreted ‘speech’ and ‘press’ broadly as covering” ...
3. How has the understanding of what is protected speech changed as technology has changed? Provide evidence.
4. According to the essay, when is it acceptable under the First Amendment to limit or punish speech? Provide evidence. “There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech” …
1.
2
3.
5. According to the essay, how has the Supreme Court addressed the freedom of speech during the 100 years since the end of World War I, and what is the status of free speech protections today? Provide evidence.
In 1925, the Supreme Court held that…
“Starting in the 1920s” …
“Today, the legal protections offered” ...
You have class time today. I am here for any questions / conversations.
Housekeeping: Please check your grades. If you have not turned one of these assignments, you will find a ZERO. Please rectify this situation.
I I am missing lots of work from folks. These have been our assignments, so far this year. If you have not turned in one of the following, you have a zero in its place. If you have questions or concerns, please contact me. We can set up a zoom time, and on Wednesdays I have office hours from 9:30 to 10:30 and 1:30 to 2:30 See link here: https://classroom.google.com/c/MTQ5Mzc1Nzg1MTAz/m/MTc0MjYwODU2NDQ3/details
Are you interested in purchasing a Black Lives Matter shirt? The on-line store is open until October 2. Make sure to let them know you are a SOTA student. Check it out:
1. This time last year, the headline we are facing today would have been unbelievable. Unfathomable. A sick joke. More than200,000 people have died on American soil of a virus that, mere months ago, was completely unknown to us. Around the world, more than 970,000 lives have been lost. With no vaccine and no widely adopted solutions, the misery won’t be ending soon.
CNN went back through their archives to see what it was like in those early days before the coronavirus pandemic became an international tragedy and changed nearly every aspect of our lives.
The first time CNN.com reported on the virus was January 8.
It was part of a so-called “mysterious pneumonia outbreak” in Wuhan, China. At the time, scientists reported no human-to-human transmissions and no deaths. We know now that the virus may have already been in the US at that time, silently lurking and spreading.
The virus was compared to the SARS pandemic that killed 774 people in Asia in 2002 and 2003. To put that in perspective, since the first known US Covid-19 death on February 6, an average of more than 858 people have died in the United States from the disease every day -- an entire SARS pandemic every several hours.
The first time you read about coronavirus was January 21.
“A new virus in China is threatening to become a pandemic,” the subject line said. At the time, the official global death toll was six. By the time you finish reading this newsletter, at least six people in the world will have died of Covid-19 since you began.
That’s not an exaggeration. There were 4,795 worldwide deaths yesterday. That’s three deaths per minute.
To put it in another perspective, the total US coronavirus death toll is equivalent to one 9/11 attack every day for 66 days. The US coronavirus death toll is more than the number of Americans killed in battle in the five most recent wars combined: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf War.
No matter how you do the math, you’re left with truly horrifying figures. But those figures represent so much more. They represent real lives, real people who leave behind devastated families and unfinished legacies. People who, were it not for this virus, would probably still be alive today. No comparison can properly convey such a loss.
In class: applying Tuesday / Wednesday readings.
Having completed the reading (another copy below) that gives a succinct interpretation of the First Amendment, we are going to apply your understanding to contempory issue of Black Lives Matter.
Rochester June 5, 2020
For each of the following questions, refer specifically to the text you read.
1. Why are Black Lives Matter allowed to protest?
2. Under the First Amendment, what rules must the protesters follow?
3. After watching this clip, in what ways do you observe the First Amendment being applied?
4. What actions might occur that would require police interference?
A Common Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press
As part of the National Constitution Center’sInteractive Constitution project, leading scholars across the legal and philosophical spectrum find common ground on the Constitution’s articles,amendments,and provisions. In this essay from September 2015, Geoffrey R. Stonefrom the University of Chicago Law School and Eugene Volokh from the UCLA School of Law say the legal protection today offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.
Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.
The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.
The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.
There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.
1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:
a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan(1964).
b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States(1969).
c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).
d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.
e. Child pornography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).
f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council(1976).
Outside these narrow categories of “low” value speech, most other content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally been very reluctant to expand the list of “low” value categories of speech.
2. The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government. For example, the speech of government employees and of students in public schools can be restricted, even based on content, when their speech is incompatible with their status as public officials or students. A teacher in a public school, for example, can be punished for encouraging students to experiment with illegal drugs, and a government employee who has access to classified information generally can be prohibited from disclosing that information.Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).
3. The government can also restrict speech under a less demanding standard when it does so without regard to the content or message of the speech. Content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large signs (which can distract drivers and clutter the landscape), are generally constitutional as long as they are “reasonable.” Because such laws apply neutrally to all speakers without regard to their message, they are less threatening to the core First Amendment concern that government should not be permitted to favor some ideas over others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC(1994). But not all content-neutral restrictions are viewed as reasonable; for example, a law prohibiting all demonstrations in public parks or all leafleting on public streets would violate the First Amendment. Schneider v. State (1939).
Courts have not always been this protective of free expression. In the nineteenth century, for example, courts allowed punishment of blasphemy, and during and shortly after World War I the Supreme Court held that speech tending to promote crime—such as speech condemning the military draft or praising anarchism—could be punished. Schenck v. United States (1919). Moreover, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Gitlow v. New York (1925).
But starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began to read the First Amendment more broadly, and this trend accelerated in the 1960s. Today, the legal protection offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.
Geoffrey R. Stone is Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
You can read more from each author on our Interactive Constitution project on this topic, as they offer viewpoints beyond this common interpretation: Fixing Free Speech By Geoffrey R. Stone | Frontiers For Free Speech By Eugene Volokh
Stone, Geoffrey, and Eugene Volkh. “A Common Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org, constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-common-interpretation-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press.
************************************
Freedom of Speech Essay Analysis Questions Instructions: Answer the following questions. Feel free to use the sentence starters in italics, but make sure to use your own words in your answers. If you want to use exact language from the essay, use quotation marks – but only quote short phrases, not whole sentences.
1. According to the essay, why is it important to protect speech, even if that speech is unpopular? Provide evidence. Laws that restrict speech are “thought to be especially problematic because” ...
2. According to the essay, what kinds of actions are included in the term “speech” as it is found in the First Amendment? Provide evidence. “The Supreme Court has interpreted ‘speech’ and ‘press’ broadly as covering” ...
3. How has the understanding of what is protected speech changed as technology has changed? Provide evidence.
4. According to the essay, when is it acceptable under the First Amendment to limit or punish speech? Provide evidence. “There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech” …
1.
2
3.
5. According to the essay, how has the Supreme Court addressed the freedom of speech during the 100 years since the end of World War I, and what is the status of free speech protections today? Provide evidence.
