Talk:Freedom of speech in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

commercial speech

Someone should include more information on freedom of commercial speech in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 August 2004 (UTC)

current info

This page could also use some detail of the more recent state of freedom of speech, and current limits on it. Much of this can be found in articles linked from here, of course. But the current page stops short at a fairly early stage. DES 23:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

countries

I realize there is some comparison between the US and other countries in the main "Freedom of Speech" article but could something along those lines, perhaps expanded, be put into this? I, personally, would be especially interested in how US freedom of speech compares to United States allies such as Japan, the UK, and Canada. Just a suggestion though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.202.183 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There is an international freedom of speech article. Sam

A long drawn out suggestion - do your own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.27.134 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Brandenburg rule

I couldn't find any source for the name "Brandenburg rule" which is in the text (near end of 2nd paragraph) - can anyone help out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.180.252.57 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Judith Miller

Should Judith Miller really be mentioned here? AFAICT, she was imprisoned not for anything she said, or published, but because she refused to reveal her sources; while that's an important issue, it's not clear that it comes under the category of freedom of press, let alone freedom of speech. As described in this page and freedom of press, those concepts seem to center on the right to express oneself, not the right to withhold information; if this is considered a freedom of speech/freedom of press issue, perhaps the page should explain why? --Calair 07:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What?!?

Why is the Wikipedia community so nazi-ist in the conjoining of two articles. Let this piece of the article remain as is. Why should I, or any other wiki visitor need to make another left click of the mouse to learn this information? Get over yourself you hardcores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.147.54.13 (talk • contribs) .

• Because (1) this article could be quite long, (2) the First Amendment article is very long (3) currently, this article only discusess freedom of speech in the U.S. up to the alien and sedition acts, which were obsolete by the nineteeth century, (4) there is a large amount of information in the First Amendment article that should be put in this one. Either this article is going to be expanded with information from the First Amendment article or it should be deleted and the First Amendment article should be relied on exclusively. Of course, that means that the First Amendment article will just get longer and longer . . . - Jersyko·talk 12:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't it belong in the article Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It's mostly about legal decisions. - Centrx 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My two Cents: Keep pages seperate

While the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech in the United States are highly related, I believe keeping the two seperated, but linked, would be more beneficial to Wikipedia users. The reasoning is simple. Both of these articles already do not address much of the current law that defines what the first amendment does and does not protect in many ways (something we can address later). Since the first Amendment is an actual law, particularly a constitutional Amendment, when people go to that article they will be firstly concerned with the law itself and how it is applied today. Freedom of Speech in the United States is more broadly defined. It can focus most its efforts on freedom of speech history, which would limitedly include the First Amendment and address many of its effects and debates regarding different issues the freedom of speech. If the pages were to merged then Freedom of Speech in the United States being more broadly defined should be the article, however many people will still search for the popularly known First Amendment. Additionally I agree with Jersyko the articles would be too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwkimbro (talk • contribs) 05:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and would keep them separate. Freedom of speech is just one of the 1st amendment rights, and it needs discussion under the first amendment for the whole of 1st amendment jurisprudence to make sense. Even though the constitutional decisions literature is going to focus entirely on the first amendment in discussing freedom of speech, there are other important aspects to freedom of speech that go beyond the first amendment, and these should get more attention here. In addition to the colonial history, I can think of the following:

(1) The entire practical history of free speech. Since there are no free speech first amendment Supreme Court cases in the 19th century, most of the material relevant to freedom of speech in the 19th century belongs here. Among the good areas for review here are the various wartime restrictions on free speech, restrictions on anarchists and the labor movement (the early labor movement stuff is fascinating, since the federalists generally believed that organizing unions interferred with the rights of employers and contract), attitudes toward religious speech, etc.

(2) State jurisprudence. State jurisprudence is where much of the legal action was in the 19th century, and is still relevant.

(3) Philosophical and intellectual history elements. From Locke and Jefferson to today, there is a lot of ground to cover.

Of course, it only makes sense to do this if we're all going to get around to writing some of these things. Sam 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Change due to biased statement

I pulled this statement: "Democratic Senators threats to revoke ABC station licenses in response to "a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism." [1]"

My reasoning was that it was written in a biased way and cites an opinion article. If anyone wants to change it to include both sides (what was found by the 9/11 commission and what some of the more conservative people are saying) then that is all good with me. Blueshoc12 19:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're pulling it without first discussing it is not appreciated. However, I am glad you expressed your reasoning here. The bias that you perceive is merely your own point of view. It is true, factually, exactly what it says. The article I cited discusses that. There is also significant other evidence, such as the actual text of the actual letters actually threatening to actually revoke the actual station licenses of actual ABC stations.

Had I intended to or actually written the sentence in a biased fashion, I would have either a) downplayed the incident or cut it out as you did, or b) played up the incident by including, for example, Mr. Clinton's 4 page letter and public statements on the matter -- even though true, an overload of making the point might in itself be bias. No, I took a middle of the road approach using actual text from the article itself, which article is from a major source in a major media outlet that has a direct impact on Freedom of Speech in the USA. Further, had I merely said "Senators" instead of "Democratic Senators" that would have been a) misleading and b) made it appear as if a bipartisan group of Senators was doing this on behalf of the USA government, instead of the mere political interests of some Senators who are members of the Democratic Party. These are the facts; I am sorry that this happened this way so I can see why you want to cut out this information, but that doesn't make it right.

Therefore, based on the above, I will be restoring your deletion forthwith. The story has major significance now and in the future on the issue of Freedom of Speech (indeed Mr. Clinton just had a public blowup over this issue that of itself is a major news story and blogosphere topic), and my introduction to it was written as carefully as possible in accordance with Wiki guidelines. At a minimum, make edits you prefer instead of merely cutting it out completely, and continue to seek input from others of the wiki community. --SafeLibraries 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually find it a strange summary and article - the article is not at all about Democratic Senators challenging a license, but instead a blast from one screenwriter upset at criticism of the series and, particularly, use of ethnic, religious and political labels in that criticism. However, on looking at the entire section of current issues, I see nothing but unsubstantiated bullet points with little substantive discussion, and it is not worse than any of the rest. I'm going to simply tag the whole article as needing review for bias and substantiation of sources. On this one point, could I perhaps suggest a citation be found that actually discusses the actions of the Democratic senators? Sam 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One screewriter?!??!? THEE screenwriter! Why do you think it made it to the Wall Street Journal in the first place? But at least you were otherwise fair. --SafeLibraries 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected - the screenwriter. I think his reference to his colleagues in the article left me unclear, but I see he has the only screenwriter credit and is identified as "the" screenwriter at the bottom of the article. But, more important, if the issue is the fact that Democratic Senators sought to revoke licenses based on the speach, it strikes me that an article about the Senators and their action would be useful. I think there are broader free speech issues involved as well - there is a conflict between wholly free speech and any regulation of the public airways, and I think there is both legal and academic work in this area. If we're going to attack such issues, I'd rather see a full, balanced discussion of the issues. These licensure rules are the same rules used to keep porn and tobacco ads off television, aren't they? Sam 00:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with including this statement is that the quote "accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism" comes from the person who wrote the screenplay itself. That is not an unbiased source, and since nobody has been censored, I don't understand why this is a Freedom of Speech issue. I'm very familiar with Freedom of Speech issues, as a law student and as a person who has written extensively on it myself here on Wikipedia. This simply does not qualify. How is this person censored? I agree with Sam - if you want to include an article about the Democratic Senators threatening to pull the licenses, that is, indeed, a threat to freedom of speech. But it appears, at least for now, the larger goal is to get this Op-Ed piece in from a screenwriter, who is not an unbiased source about his own work. It needs to go, or be replaced. --DavidShankBone 16:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Safelibraries, you are coming on to WP arguing POV and Cyrus Nowrasteh is not an unbiased source of information about his own work. A dissection of that Op-Ed you keep trying to insert in WP is here: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003123574. Regardless, this Op-Ed has no place in Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press. Unlike, say, the Nixon Administration trying to suppress the Pentagon Papers Mr. Nowrasteh has neither been suppressed nor had his speech curtailed. He is also not a member of the press, but a self-proclaimed Conservative who made a demonstrably inaccurate documentary. What you are doing is not an effort to spread truth to readers of WP, but instead distort reality. In the end, this Op-Ed has no place here because it is inherently and demonstrably flawed. Clinton definitely could have done more, but so could have Bush (which HAS been demonstrated - remember "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States?). But this is not the place for you to push your agenda-driven view of reality. Please stop. --DavidShankBone 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the evidence that Democratic Senators threatened to revoke ABC station licenses? Harry Reid et al wrote letters telling ABC stations that they thought the film was inaccurate, but I haven't seen any solid evidence that they threatened to revoke licenses. Finally, doesn't the FCC, not Congress, revoke and grant licenses (I understand it's backed by statute, but still . . . this is sort of a red herring, actually)? · j e r s y k o talk · 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerseyko, I have investigated this Op-Ed and it has no place on WP. I have no problem with conservative additions and criticisms (I actually respect the conservative tradition), but SafeLibraries keeps inserting this link. Here is what I last posted on this issue on the Freedom of the press Talk page:

::You must be joking about the last line, or you don't follow the news. Can you at all find a source to substantiate that there were threats to pull the licenses from ABC, aside from the heresy of the documentary producer himself? If so, please post a link to a mainstream publication, because a Google news search only comes up with Nowrasteh saying it. That doesn't make it so. And please, explain to me how a minority party, that is not in control of the FCC, the Congress, or the White House, can get the licenses of television stations pulled? Could you please explain this to me? So, we have a self-described Conservative documentary maker, whose documentary was criticized for fabrications by both liberals and conservatives, claiming that a minority party who doesn't control any organs of the government was going to pull the licenses of television stations? If this is the sort of stuff you are going to insert into WP, Safelibraries, then you are hurting the site itself. We aren't here to push agendas, we are here to seek truth and come to consensus. You are hurting your own credibility by standing so high-and-mighty on a documentary that has been criticized by everyone and proven to be inaccurate. Is that really the way you want to go? --DavidShankBone 19:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, David. Your request for hard evidence is similar to my own. The point is that if there is not evidence of such threats, this isn't a free speech issue and has no place in this article. So can you point to such evidence, Safelibraries? · j e r s y k o talk · 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was only tangentially interested in this initially. I saw an article that looked perfect for this page and was just trying to contribute. My politics had nothing to do with it. However, now that you asked, I guess I should go and find some support as you requested. Maybe I will. But it's brewing in the news even now. Perhaps waiting might be better. But perhaps I'll look now anyway. I'll get back to this soonish, I hope. Oh, and I did get rid of "Democratic Senators." --SafeLibraries 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Safelibraries. I'll look forward to seeing what you find. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

K, now due to my tangential interest, I'll list articles here, but I have not and likely will not read them.

The Path Taken [John J. Miller] National Review Online Blogs, NY - Sep 18, 2006 ... For this—for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses—Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve ...

The enemies of free speech are on the march - -Part 5: The Senate ... renewamerica.us, D.C. - Sep 10, 2006 ... Of course, the senators don't come right out and explicitly say they will go after ABC's broadcast station licenses unless the network caves in to their Pravda ...

Daily Kos: FCC Licenses and You (The ABC / Path to 9-11 Edition) ATTN: Video Division, License Renewal Processing Team Room 2-A665. Additionally, you should only file petitions to deny for your local ABC station. ... www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/9/201054/5082 - 91k - Cached - Similar pages

   Daily Kos: Another way to go after ABC
   Well, you can include in your comments to ABC affiliates along with threats ... A person or entity opposing the grant of a radio station's license renewal ...
   www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/6/191651/3275 - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

Congressional democrats threaten ABC's broadcast license ... For this--for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses--Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve ... forum.fearbush.com/index.php?showtopic=12451&view=getnewpost - 135k - DON'T GO THERE - McAFEE SITEADVISOR HAD RED X LINK

From the perspective of an article on Freedom of Speech, I think this whole issue barely rises to the level of a footnote, especially in an article this short. If there is a short substantive discussion on current issues, this should get lumped in with other parallel issues (e.g., pressure to keep other shows off the air, or to limit or restrict commercials, etc.) What is worthy of significant discussion in this article is the broader notion that we license and regulate broadcasted speech. I think this is worthy of discussion not just in terms of legal precedents and what permits the regulation of this speech, but also from a broader political, philosophical and historical perspective. What are the limits on regulation? What groups push for more regulation? Where are there disagreements over this approach? Sam 22:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all of those links prove nothing

First, the FCC controls licenses. Thanks for the Daily Kos link safelibraries, but only if Republicans want to pull their licenses will there be pressure. And the FCC doesn't have to listen to congress (did you know that?); their decisions can be questioned, but ultimately they have congressional authority but fall under the auspices of the executive branch. When you can produce a news story from an MAIN STREAM publication, that is respected and whose entire business model rests on being see as accurate, reports this threat, then I personally feel the issue is closed. It speaks for itself. Go hunting for a news story (not op-ed) where facts must be checked in any of the conservative presses: Washington Times, WSJ, NY Sun, USA Today, Fox News, etc. I learned an important lesson a long time ago, SafeLibrarires: stop reading idelogical blogs and read the news for yourself, without spin. It will do you a world of good on Wikipedia. I mean that with all due respect. --DavidShankBone 01:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why is your name DavidShankBone? --SafeLibraries 01:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I have lineage. --DavidShankBone 02:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Months ago, I started to rewrite this entire article in my sandbox (User:Jersyko/sandbox). I don't remember what I was able to accomplish, and don't remember where I stopped. I thought I would mention it since there has been a relative flurry of activity on this article today. If anyone wants to take a look at what I have there or expand it, feel free. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the article needs a rewrite, or at least major expansion, because its scope is extremely limited (covering the history of free speech only so far as the Alient and Sedition Act). I proposed at one point that relevant sections currently at First Amendment to the United States Constitution should be merged here, but it met with an unenthusiastic response. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - looks like some useful stuff in there. This is a conceptually difficult article - it shouldn't duplicate the first amendment article, so it has to take a broader view, which strikes me as much less well-traveled territory. But also potentially quite interesting. I'll have to give some thought to what I may have to add. Sam 00:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What about kids?

I've found that kids don't have as much freedom as adults, despite the constitution clearly stating "We the People". Should this even be allowed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.250.152 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

The issue of freedom of speech for children is something that should be addressed, probably in this article. There's certainly enough on it, particularly about in (public) schools, with court cases like Tinker v. Des Moines and subsequent cases (some of which are mentioned in that article), and an ACLU page on student speech, etc. Mairi 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I added this coverage to the article; we have several articles covering the important cases. -- Beland (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What about kids? 2

I understand the statement above but I also understand that the constitution was written, and made by men. Not children. Maybe an amendment can change the rights of children but the original constitution has nothing to do with children.

---

Our children will be entrusted by all of us some day to cherish and protect the Constitution. The idea as envisioned by the founders was that this plan of government would be carried on across generations. Of course, children cannot claim constitutional protection against their parents (non-governmental authority) but they certainly should enjoy freedom from governmental action as are adults so long and to the extent that their parents or caretakers are providing for them, while at the same time learning how government serves its important purpose. The Constitution matters, especially to kids.

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. -- Beland (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Patriot Act?

'The Patriot Act is also a major aspect of regulation of the Freedom of Speech on the internet. The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor the internet for any suspicious discussions involving any threat to the United States.'

This isn't a question of free speech restriction -- the govt is still not preventing or punishing speech itself. It may be an issue of Fourth Amendment concern, but it really doesn't belong here. 74.65.2.99 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I would like to suggest adding banning Al-Manar and censoring Latifa's speech in the world music awards 2004 radiant guy (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

unlawful free speech

A friend of a friend was charged in a court in the USA with ‘unlawful free speech’. Does anyone know in which statute this offence is defined? Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I found 40 USC Sec. 6134 01/02/2006 (Firearms, fireworks, speeches, and objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and grounds): ‘It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds.’ – Kaihsu (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

federalistblog

72.201.226.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has twice added http://federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press.html to the external link section. It is an unsourced blog with no apparent editorial standards and hence would seem to violate WP:RS as a source. Moreover, it doesn't satisfy the guidance of WP:EL, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

campaign finance

The reference to campaign finance laws as an exception in the second paragraph should be removed, and I intend to delete it.

Campaign finance laws involve regulation of donations to candidates or political parties only. They do not, and may not, regulate speech. The Buckley decision struck down a restriction on spending by candidates as a violation of free speech. More recently, a law that attempted to regulate spending on speech by non-candidates was also struck down in Citizen's United, though that did not involve donations to candidates.

It's pretty clearly established that campaign finance laws or any other laws regulating money in political speech may not violate free speech rights, for "fairness" or any other reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalowing (talk • contribs) 16:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

political symbols re: institutionalized persons

Can anyone share any info on the first ammendment as it applies to institutionalized persons, specificaly those in community confinement programs such as "halfway houses"? I know that for religious expression, under the Religious Land Use For Institutionalized Persons Act, expression and practice can only be restricted if it can be established that there is a "compelling peneological intrest" and the restriction is the least restrictive way of meeting that interest. Atheism is considered to have the same protections as religion, but what about political philosophies and symbols. Obviously a swastica could cause violence and should be banned as there would be a compelling interest, but what about a sickle and hammer, a flag, an anarchy symbol, a peace sign? I would appreciate any references available, especialy to Congressional Acts and Case law on the issue. I'd like to include a section on this in the article, but am not able to get info as i really dont know where to look. 72.11.91.6 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)