76

Contact the local affiliate of the ACLU: Affiliates | American Civil Liberties Union. They have a long history of protecting schools and public institutions from religious influences. They will be able to determine the legality of the displays in the school and if the subject of the presentation by the speaker is legally problematic, and will know the ...


69

In general, employers in the United States are free to fire you for your speech. The First Amendment does not apply to anyone except the government (other than a narrow set of circumstances where private parties act on behalf of the government or take on government roles, like when private universities employ campus police). If the officer was being fired ...


49

The ACLU is an excellent choice. Let me also recommend the Freedom from Religion Foundation. They handle these outrages on a regular basis.


48

How is banning such events constitutional with the freedom of assembly? The rights created by the First Amendment are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions as to time, place and manner, especially if those restrictions are content neutral. Restrictions narrowly tailored to protect against genuine threats public health and safety fall ...


43

The comments have already pointed out that the President of the United States is still a citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen are still protected for them. Additionally, the Administration is allowed to take policy positions which are antagonistic to a person or group's cause, even if that group is practicing their rights to express their views ...


34

In most of the United States, the answer is yes. The First Amendment protects your freedom of speech from government interference, not from private interference. You don't have to be friends with someone who says "war sucks," and you can kick someone out of your house for opposing the invasion of Libya. But corporations enjoy mostly the same First Amendment ...


28

Yes, A First Amendment defense would apply. This is no longer a crime. Schacht In Schacht vs. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970) the US Supreme Court held the final clause of 10 USC 772(f) unconstitutional on just this ground. In that case anti-war protesters rehearsed and performed a skit in which soldiers shot and killed a character dressed as a member of ...


24

The essence of the order's argument is that in editing user generated content outside of the provisions in one section of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), the platform necessarily excludes itself from the protections afforded by another section of the CDA. The EFF says: ... Even though neither the statute nor court opinions that interpret it mush ...


21

Only time, and a lawsuit, will tell. Events of more that 250 people have been banned in the three largest counties of Western Washington, as authorized by state law. The first proclamation declared a state of emergency, ordering numerous other things in the second proclamation, and limiting large events in the most recent proclamation. Until the end of the ...


14

No. The Fourteenth Amendment says: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; The Supreme Court has determined that this clause incorporates much of the Bill of Rights. The logic is mildly tortured, but it's basically that "due process of law" means "due process of a law that is compatible with the ...


14

This is not actually a First Amendment issue; as you correctly state, the First Amendment only limits government actions, not those of private citizens or organizations. However, companies like Twitter currently enjoy some liability protections that are commonly understood to be based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that require them to ...


13

Private entities are not restricted by the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is: 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 ...


13

"Contempt of Congress" does not extend, in a legal sense, to insulting Congress as a whole, one house, a committee chair, or a member. (Congress and its committees have power to require both members and witnesses to abide by its rules of decorum, which forbid such insults, but as far as I know the remedy is merely to remove the disorderly person.) Contempt ...


13

There is a potentially infinite regress of questions regarding the constitutionality of restrictions imposed under these "emergency" circumstances. The basic legal principle is clearly established: laws restricting fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. The specific details of a particular law and surrounding circumstances have yet to be ...


12

Assuming that the documents were either true, or Manning reasonably believed that they were true, there would be no cause of action for defamation. Many of the documents disclosed would have been confidential in some sense, but usually a violation of a confidentiality statute has a criminal sanction associated with it, but does not carry with it a private ...


11

Everson v. Board of Education applied the establishment clause of the 1st amendment to state law. Applying the Bill of Rights to state law is known as incorporation as in, incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states. It has had some controversy as reflected in U.S. Supreme Court decisions as to how, which and when specific amendments are or were ...


11

Where the President explicitly tells a newspaper that they should reveal their sources. Is this not illegal in the US? It is not illegal. Well, it would be a U.S. Attorney, rather than the President himself. You're thinking of shield laws, but no such law exists at the federal level. Moreover, although some people might think that the First Amendment ("...


11

There's no law against him saying the paper should name the source, nor is there any law against directly asking the paper to name its source. The president was at a campaign rally, and his speech is protected by the same First Amendment that protects the New York Times. At the federal level, the paper could be forced to reveal the source, but it would have ...


11

False statements are generally protected by the First Amendment. If the video was an obvious gag or work of fiction, in which a reasonable person would understand that you were not truly endorsed, your false statement would almost certainly be protected by the First Amendment. But many false statements are not protected, typically because of their negative ...


11

The "purpose of the document" is pure politics; in a legal sense, it will go nowhere, unless it - through what will be a long court and/or legislative process - somehow forces a legislative change in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in that publishers would be responsible for the public's speech on their platform. Or, somehow, there is a ...


10

Is this illegal? No, subject to some possible narrow exceptions discussed below. Do the social media companies have a duty under the First Amendment to not censor users? No. Indeed, usually, there is greater liability exposure for failing to censor content, for example, by failing to honor a "take down notice" under Title II of the Digital ...


10

I would recommend contacting Americans United for Separation of Church and State. If you check their website, you can see their mission: Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a nonpartisan educational and advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the separation of religion and government as the only way to ensure freedom of ...


9

Is this true? The word "employers" suggests that he's using the word institution to include businesses. Yes. So can a person working for a grocery store or drugstore be fired for saying "I didn't support the invasion of Libya" or wearing a shirt that says "War sucks"? Yes. Virtually all of the rights in the federal constitution are only protected ...


9

If I want to protest for or against President Trump and decide to wear a Trump mask, isn't that speech protected by the first amendment? Probably. The matter of intent, in any event, is for a court to decide (if the prosecutor determines that the question should even be presented to a court). For example, someone seeking to rob a bank in a mask would ...


9

Frame challenge. This isn't speech Keep in mind the context. These are not private items in his private sanctum. He displayed prejudicial matériel during a house showing. He gave a tour of his house. For home buyers. He had no idea who the Realtor was bringing to see his house. He made a point to festoon his home with symbols of white supremacy, ...


8

That definition still applies, at least in federal law. Under 18 USC 2256: “child pornography” means any visual depiction ... indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct But the First Amendment limits its applicability in cases like Sabrina. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), the Supreme Court held ...


8

In that case, Cruise-Gulyas was subject to a second stop, and the court found that the second stop was an illegal seizure. There is no qualified immunity since this was an exercise of a clearly established First Amendment right. The authority to seize her ended when the first stop ended. The finger is not a basis for a stop, since it does not violate any law ...


8

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 ...


6

The powers of the President are contained in Article II of the constitution; this is a fair summary. The power to make executive orders stems from Section 1 "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." When the Supreme Court considers the legality of an executive order (which only happens when someone brings a case ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible