32

It might be more helpful to reverse the analogy. Unprotected speech is a box, and everything that doesn't fit inside the box is free speech. The box is small and strangely shaped, and therefore, very few things will fit inside. The government has spent centuries trying to cram things into it, so we have a pretty good idea of what fits and what doesn't: ...


30

Mockery is allowed; hate speech isn’t While freedom of speech is guaranteed under French law it does have limits. Since 2004, these limits have applied to gender and sexuality. Mockery is contemptuous or insulting speech; hate speech or vilification incites hatred, serious contempt or ridicule. The boundary between them must be established on a case-by-case ...


28

Short answer: It depends on the state and exactly how you do so. Stating how you voted, by itself, is fine; however, taking a photo of your ballot instead of just saying how you voted is illegal in some states, especially if the photo was taken within a polling place. Laws banning these so-called "ballot selfies" may be unconstitutional, and have ...


25

The answer depends on what state they are in. In some states, both parties must consent to being recorded. In the rest, only one party must consent. If the two are not in the same state, it may also depend on which states they are in. Here's a nice summary of the issues, and a fairly detailed list of the laws in each state. (Caveat: As the discussion in the ...


14

The main relevant bit of constitutional law is Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, where it was held that a general law against use of peyote does not violate the Free Exercise clause, though in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 a law specifically designed to restrict Santeria animal sacrifices is an undue burden on ...


13

Mocking, or criticising homosexuality, or LGBT as a concept is OK. For example, former governement member Christine Boutin said "Homosexuality is an abomination", and it was considered OK (after appeals, she lost in lower courts, but eventually prevailed). Mocking, or criticising LGBT people is not. For example, far right magazine "Minute"...


12

The precedent arising from the Millard Gillars treason prosecution is Gillars v. United States, 182 F.2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1950). There were numerous issues raised on appeal but portion of the opinion regarding what counts as treason is as follows: The theory of this contention is that treason may not be committed by words, that all vocal utterances are, by ...


12

I don't know of any law that prohibits the disclosure of your choices on a ballot. It would certainly be invalidated on First Amendment grounds. There are laws outlawing the disclosure of pictures of your ballot, but there is little remaining debate that these laws violate the First Amendment. New Hampshire's ballot-selfie law was invalidated in 2015, and ...


12

You really asked two different questions, so let's take them one at a time: Publisher Within the scope of 47 USC 230, Stack Exchange is defined as a provider of an "interactive computer service," which is defined as follows: Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access ...


11

Since the mod welcomes answers from other jurisdictions a short note on the situation in Germany. In 2017, the head of the federal election commission ("Bundeswahlleiter") filed charges against several persons who took selfies of their mail-in ballots in their homes and published them. He referred to §107c of the penal code that forbids to violate ...


10

Not necessarily. The right to a translator is derived from the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, and the prohibition against discrimination based on national origin (the Civil Rights Act). However, SCOTUS noted in Perovich v. US, 205 US 86 that appointment of a translator is a discretionary matter for the court (this was simply mentioned, without details as to ...


10

As a adult of sound mind, you are responsible for your actions. Background checks for job applications are common place to determine suitability. The employers have the right (and responsibility) to choose what is in their best interest. If through your previous and present actions, they come to the conclusion that you will become a liability to their ...


9

The US developed from an earlier kingdom, and the First Amendment enshrines the main issue that led to our departure from that kingdom. The underlying political premise has been that disagreement is to be dealt with rationally and not through force, such as where opinions contrary to those articulated by the government are squashed (in order to eliminate ...


8

Treason, like free speech, is in the Constitution To add to bdb's point that the First Amendment is not absolute, the relation of treason to free speech is also complicated by the fact that treason itself is in the Constitution. (In fact, treason is the only crime that is defined in the Constitution.) That treason is in the Constitution means it has a ...


8

What do you mean by “record”? If “record” means taking notes, even verbatim notes if the journalist knows shorthand (which is a great skill for a journalist), then, absolutely. If “record” means an audio recording with a piece of technology, then, it depends on where each person is and what technology is used and,perhaps what is being discussed. The ...


8

In the UK, it's a crime to take any photographs or images inside the polling station. Photographing a ballot paper is a big no-no. Although prosecutions to my knowledge are extremely rare and you would realistically probably just get a telling-off from the police. Unless you did something really egregious like walk around a polling station photographing ...


7

In the geographic domain overseen by 5th Circuit Court of Appeals the answer is (likely) yes. They have just temporarily upheld the abortion provisions of the Texas Governor's COVID order (In re Abbott). In doing so, they noted in their decision that in a public health crisis such as COVID the government can prohibit religious assembly: “[U]nder the ...


7

In the United States, a website that is labeled as parody and that a reasonable reader would, upon reflection, recognize as not stating true facts is protected under the First Amendment, so no liability will attach. The key case on this point is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). At the time, Campari Liqueur was running an ad campaign in which ...


7

One could make a First Amendment challenge to mask requirements through either the Free Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause. Neither approach is likely to succeed. Because going without a mask is not recognized as "expressive conduct," it is not protected by the Free Speech Clause A free-speech challenge would likely also fail for two reasons....


7

You don't explicitly say (this being an internationally visited and populated site), but based on your question, I will assume that you are in the US. For the question you asked: Is the company the government? If not, then NO, you cannot successfully sue a company (or person for that matter) for violating the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment ...


6

The bar is as low as "public safety", which also enables limits on First Amendment speech rights in the realm of threats, fraud and incitement to violence. The bar is not totally on the ground, because any limit on expression (or any compulsory expression) is subject to a strict scrutiny review. That means that the government action must be ...


6

The "Hitlergruß" In Germany, statements and even gestures that are identified with the nazi ideology are a criminal offence under StGB §86a (Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations) and StGB $130 (Volksverhetzung), leaving a gap only for art, science, research or teaching. This makes the "Hitlergruß" with or ...


6

Your school can compel you to pray, if it is a private school. I assume you are asking about a government school. As a limited public forum, the school can limit content (can forbid discussion of a topic), but cannot limit viewpoint (cannot allow only pro-abortion speech while prohibiting anti-abortion speech). If they allow the Godly pledge, they must allow ...


5

Political beliefs are not a protected class under either California or Federal law. A company is well within their rights to refuse to hire you for being racist.


4

Well, there was another recent case: In Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, (WD KY, April 18, 2020), a Kentucky federal district court refused a request by a church and its pastor to issue a temporary restraining order against enforcing Governor Andy Beshear’s ban on mass gatherings. The ban includes in-person religious services. The court said in ...


4

Option 1 is that this is a private school. The school can establish whatever rules they want. There might be a cause of action for breach of contract, but more likely there is some clause saying "You have to do what the principal tells you". Private organizations are allowed to completely suppress you freedom of expression. Option 2 is that this is ...


4

Start with the premise that Person A has so far engaged only in speech, which is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. So unless the speech is for some reason unprotected, the police should not involve themselves. This of course begs the question of whether this speech is protected. The First Amendment does not protect "true threats," ...


3

Bhushan was convicted of criminal contempt of court. The underlying statute is the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The definition of criminal contempt (art. 2(c)) is that (c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act ...


3

You are not obliged to say anything to a police officer during a traffic stop, in fact you are generally better off staying silent. This is your Fifth Amendment right to silence. The only exception to this is that the officer could ask for your name and you are obliged to give it under Arizona Laws 13-2412, but the answer to that is language-independent ...


3

No. It is an often repeated misconception that "Freedom of Speech" means that no one can restrict speech ever. This is not the case. Let us look at the US Consitution's First Admendment, which contains the "Freedom of Speech" clause: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... (Emphasis mine) As one can see, the ...


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