How does freedom of speech work

Amnesty International United Kingdom Section. A company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales Amnesty International UK. Login Search Menu. Log in. Line height Increased Default. Contrast High contrast Default. Freedom of speech. What is freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right?

Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted. You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted. Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. And restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others.

United States , U. Ohio , U. To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , U. Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District 43 v. Fraser , U. Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. 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 freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.

New York Times v. Sullivan Watts v. United States Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 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 Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.

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 Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech.

Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council 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 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. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. FCC 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 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. Moreover, it was not until that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited state and local governments, as well as the federal government.