First Amendment And Free Spech: When İt Applies And When İt Doesn't - Cnnpolitics

First Amendment And Free Spech: When İt Applies And When İt Doesn't - Cnnpolitics

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does

Let's look at some common First Amendment arguments, illuminated and debunked by constitutional experts.

1/16/2021 5:01:00 PM

Here's a look at some common First Amendment arguments, illuminated and debunked by constitutional experts.

Let's look at some common First Amendment arguments, illuminated and debunked by constitutional experts.

Design: India Hayes and Alberto Mier, CNNUpdated 1656 GMT (0056 HKT) January 12, 2021 h1.pg-headline { font-weight: 900; } .element-raw h2 { text-align: center; font-size: 1.6em; } That's it. That's the entirety of our Constitution's First Amendment, the central tenet of our American way of life that gets dragged out every time someone's banned from Twitter. There's a lot going on in those few sentences, and it's important to know when and how it applies to common situations -- and, equally as important, when it doesn't. .m-infographic_1610465644649{background:url(//cdn.cnn.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2021/01/12/1st_amendment_expert_Lara-Nott_Mobile2.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent;margin-bottom:30px;width:100%;-moz-background-size:cover;-o-background-size:cover;-webkit-background-size:cover;background-size:cover;font-size:0;}.m-infographic_1610465644649:before{content:"";display:block;padding-top:157.56%;}@media (min-width:640px) {.m-infographic_1610465644649 {background-image:url(//cdn.cnn.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2021/01/12/1st_amendment_expert_Lara-Nott_Desktop2.jpg);}.m-infographic_1610465644649:before{padding-top:33.94%;}}@media (min-width:1120px) {.m-infographic_1610465644649 {background-image:url(//cdn.cnn.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2021/01/12/1st_amendment_expert_Lara-Nott_Desktop2.jpg);}.m-infographic_1610465644649:before{padding-top:33.94%;}}.m-infographic_1610469833403{background:url(//cdn.cnn.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2021/01/12/1st-amendment-expert_Roy-Gutterman-Mobile2.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent;margin-bottom:30px;width:100%;-moz-background-size:cover;-o-background-size:cover;-webkit-background-size:cover;background-size:cover;font-size:0;}.m-infographic_1610469833403:before{content:"";display:block;padding-top:157.56%;}@media (min-width:640px) {.m-infographic_1610469833403 {background-image:url(//cdn.cnn.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2021/01/12/1st-amendment-expert_Roy-Gutterman-Desktop2.jpg);}.m-infographic_1610469833403:before{padding-top:33.94%;}}@media (min-width:1120px) {.m-infographic_1610469833403 {background-image:url(//cdn.cnn.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2021/01/12/1st-amendment-expert_Roy-Gutterman-Desktop2.jpg);}.m-infographic_1610469833403:before{padding-top:33.94%;}} .zn-body-text h3:not(.el__headline):not(.cd__headline):before {margin:30px auto 20px;} .pg.t-light .zn-body-text h3 {text-align:center; font-weight:700;} .m-infographic--1492465200995 { background: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/SocialMedia_Mobile.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent; margin-bottom: 30px; padding-top: 51.9893899204244%; width: 100%; -moz-background-size: cover; -o-background-size: cover; -webkit-background-size: cover; background-size: cover; } @media (min-width: 640px) { .m-infographic--1492465200995{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/SocialMedia_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } @media (min-width: 1120px) { .m-infographic--1492465200995{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/SocialMedia_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } Read MoreThis is not a First Amendment issue, though plenty of people think it is.This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations, like Twitter and Facebook, so those companies can ban speech the First Amendment would otherwise protect.However, while it's not unconstitutional, if private platforms outright ban certain types of protected speech, it sets an uncomfortable precedent for the values of free speech. Real Life ExamplePresident Donald Trump was suspended from a host of social media platforms, including a permanent ban from Twitter, his preferred mode of communication, for his role in inciting the riot on the US Capitol. Though Trump is expected to lash out at tech companies, it's not a First Amendment issue because Twitter is a private company.

Stacey Abrams calls GOP efforts to restrict voting ‘new Jim Crow era laws’ Wray refutes claims that Antifa and leftists added to Capitol riot FBI Director Wray says the Capitol siege has been an 'inspiration' to terrorist extremists

"So if, say, Twitter decides to ban you, you'd be a bit out of luck," Nott says. "You can't make a First Amendment claim in court." .m-infographic--1492465278885 { background: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/Fired_Mobile.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent; margin-bottom: 30px; padding-top: 60.1063829787234%; width: 100%; -moz-background-size: cover; -o-background-size: cover; -webkit-background-size: cover; background-size: cover; } @media (min-width: 640px) { .m-infographic--1492465278885{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/Fired_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } @media (min-width: 1120px) { .m-infographic--1492465278885{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/Fired_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } If you work for a private company, it's probably not a First Amendment issue. As citizens, employees have the right to express themselves and exercise their First Amendment. But those rights don't translate to the private workplace, Gutterman says. But just because a private employer has the right to fire someone for something they say doesn't give them legal carte blanche. Depending on what the fired employee said, the employer could be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, or possibly in violation of contract lawIf you're a government employee, it's complicated.Institutions like police departments, public schools and local government branches can't restrict employee's free speech rights, but they do need to assure that such speech doesn't keep the employee from doing their job, Nott says. It's definitely a balancing act, and the rise of social media has made it harder for such institutions to regulate their employee's speech in a constitutional manner. Real Life ExampleSeveral companies have fired employees who participated in last week's attack on the US Capitol, including a man who wore an ID badge for his direct marketing company during the riot and a broker whose employer, a real estate company, condemned her participation in the violence. Private companies can limit employees' First Amendment rights.

Nott says she's heard of cases where police officers sued after being fired for saying or writing racist remarks, and courts have ruled in favor of the department. In that case, she says,"being a known racist impacts [the officers'] ability to do their jobs." headtopics.com

.m-infographic--1492470401103 { background: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/CancelsSpeech_Mobile.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent; margin-bottom: 30px; padding-top: 77.6595744680851%; width: 100%; -moz-background-size: cover; -o-background-size: cover; -webkit-background-size: cover; background-size: cover; } @media (min-width: 640px) { .m-infographic--1492470401103{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/CancelsSpeech_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } @media (min-width: 1120px) { .m-infographic--1492470401103{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/CancelsSpeech_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } If it's a private institution, it's probably not a First Amendment issue. If it's a public institution, the lines can get blurry. "If you invite someone to speak on your campus and are a public university, you have to respect their First Amendment rights," Nott says. That doesn't mean you can't put regulations on a speech, like dictating the time, place, venue and suggestions for subject matter. It just means you can't do so in a way that discriminates against a certain point of view. If students protesting play a hand in moving or canceling a speaker, that presents a different free speech challenge. "If a speaker were to take legal action for being blocked from speaking, they can't do it against the students. You can't take constitutional action against a group of private citizens," she adds. Such a complaint would have to go against the school, for allowing the constitutional breach to happen.Real Life ExampleTwo conservative organizations filed a federal lawsuit in 2017 after a speaking event at UC Berkeley featuring Ann Coulter was rescheduled following violent protests and threats. The groups argued the change of venue and time was"repressive" and marginalized conservative views. The school says they acted out of concern for safety.

The question of intent is central to arguments like these."If they moved her because her life is under threat, that seems pretty viewpoint neutral," Nott says."But if a school moves a speaker just to shove them to the side then that is unconstitutional."

.m-infographic--1492465383875 { background: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/CriticalGovernment_Mobile.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent; margin-bottom: 30px; padding-top: 64.36170212765957%; width: 100%; -moz-background-size: cover; -o-background-size: cover; -webkit-background-size: cover; background-size: cover; } @media (min-width: 640px) { .m-infographic--1492465383875{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/CriticalGovernment_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } @media (min-width: 1120px) { .m-infographic--1492465383875{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/CriticalGovernment_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } Definitely a First Amendment issue.But, like pretty much everything in law, there are exceptions and nuances. "It's definitely unconstitutional, unless you are trying to incite people to violence with your speech," Nott says. Even then, it needs to be a true threat -- one that has immediacy and some sort of actual intent. Real Life ExampleProtesters who chanted threats against lawmakers on the streets of Washington or in public places were protected by the First Amendment, Gutterman says. Their speech could be considered"political hyperbole" -- incendiary, sure, but ultimately not a true threat.

But once they broke into the Capitol, the context changed, Nott says, and their speech may be considered a true threat since they had a"very real chance of encountering the politicians they were threatening."Many of the rioters that stormed the Capitol still haven't been charged or arrested yet, so it remains to be seen whether they'll claim protection under the First Amendment. headtopics.com

New pitch for a Pacific military buildup iCarly's Jennette McCurdy Confirms She's Quit Acting and Says She's 'Embarrassed' by Her Roles - E! Online Radio Is On Road to Recovery But Needs More Help From Podcasts

.m-infographic--1492470364188 { background: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/Comment_Mobile.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent; margin-bottom: 30px; padding-top: 57.97872340425532%; width: 100%; -moz-background-size: cover; -o-background-size: cover; -webkit-background-size: cover; background-size: cover; } @media (min-width: 640px) { .m-infographic--1492470364188{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/Comment_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } @media (min-width: 1120px) { .m-infographic--1492470364188{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/Comment_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } It's a private company, so it's not a First Amendment issue. There's that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever they want. Users agree to a site's terms of service when they join. But whether blocking content -- even offensive or violent content -- is within the spirit of free speech is another issue, Gutterman says. While such sites retain the right to remove content they don't like, they are also protected by the Communications Decency Act, Section 230. "That says, if you are an internet company and you have some way for people to post or leave comments, you are not liable for what they do," Nott says. This covers things like obscenity, violence and threats.The problem is, this protection often butts up against the enforcement of basic community standards. "Facebook is under enormous pressure to take down, not just violent and illegal content, but fake news," Nott says."And the more it starts to play editor for its own site, the more likely it is to lose that Section 230 protection."Real Life ExampleTwitter removed several of President Trump's tweets last week reacting to the violence at the US Capitol before it suspended his account. As a private company, it has the power to do that -- even to the President of the United States, Gutterman says.

.m-infographic--1492465471907 { background: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/PoliceActivity_Mobile.jpg) no-repeat 0 0 transparent; margin-bottom: 30px; padding-top: 56.38297872340425%; width: 100%; -moz-background-size: cover; -o-background-size: cover; -webkit-background-size: cover; background-size: cover; } @media (min-width: 640px) { .m-infographic--1492465471907{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/PoliceActivity_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } @media (min-width: 1120px) { .m-infographic--1492465471907{ background-image: url(//i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.e/interactive/html5-video-media/2017/04/17/PoliceActivity_Desktop.jpg); padding-top: 9.625%; } } A First Amendment issue -- usually. You are fully within your rights to record the police doing their job in public. And if you get arrested while doing so, your constitutional rights are being violated. This is, unless you were doing something unlawful at the time of your arrest.In a heated situation with police, that can also become a gray area. Physical assault or threats could obviously get you arrested, but what about if you were just yelling at the police while recording, say, to get them to stop an act or to pay attention? "That's tough," Nott says."If you were disturbing the peace, you can get arrested for that, or for other things. But the bottom line is it's not a crime to record police activities in a public space." What speech isn't covered under the First Amendment?

Source: Freedom Forum Read more: CNN »

Where things stand in the Jan. 6 investigation, according to the the FBI director

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing with FBI Director Christopher Wray on the security failures surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Follow here for the latest.

ZemanLynnZ Real incitement: 'the morning after Donald Trump’s (2017) inauguration...500,000 people crowded into the nation’s capital for..(a)“counter-inauguration,” co-sponsored by the ACLU & many other groups...likely single largest protest in American history' Wake up America. The brainwashing has begun. Don't be a SHEEP!

Notice how Democrats are attacking the 1st ammendment? The 2nd protects the first. Anyone that entered the Capitol during the siege should have been brought out of the Capitol into a main corral area where they could have been processed and arrested. This would have gotten them all, instead of the laborious piecemeal method.

📜 Don’t forget discrimination against religion Some people really need to read it carefully and pay close attention to it, like reading a contract. 'A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within. Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos. Quote: Ariel Durant. 4Real. 🇺🇸 UpAndAt'Em!USA

Don't watch fake news watch NEWSMAX NEWSMAX NEWSMAX NEWSMAX NEWSMAX NEWSMAX Bullshit!!!!😝 Manipulated media letsbefair We are not peep holes. Each of us are created by God for a specific purpose. Find that purpose & run with it. ScottAdamsSays and the MSM is now advocated the death of free speech You could just ask me directly you know.

Makes sense To the same extent, I don’t believe religions that condone the murder and annihiliation of people from other religions, should be tolerated. Lol we know what it means just most of these people are morons and don’t understand that Security McMaster. You need to speak plainly. Tongue in cheek is for another time.

McMaster there are not people who have lost confidence in democracy. They fell a loss of ' white supremacy'. Republicans have equated democracy with white supremacy and superiority. To the Republicans it is ' democracy for white people'. Not all the people. Keep indoctrinated masses dumb to manipulate public opinion to push devide and control lol your in for a good week cnn cant wait

Property rights Political-correctness transcends any and all questionable allowances to FREE SPEECH. CNN-Brasil hired a journalist who is an idol of conspirators named ALEXANDRE GARCIA. He spreads fake news about COVID and the American and Brazilian democracies, live and every day on CNN. Please. Do something !!!

There are no arguments.....if you know how to Read Being CNN I am not shocked about you unconstitutional views. No law or right is absolute. The only thing in absolute in life is we die. So if we really had true freedom of speech, you wouldn't have defamation, slander or libel. You wouldn't have plea deals. So, that why is they aren't absolute.

This is propaganda & it should be viewed as disseminating false information for failing to identify how Twitter, Facebook, Google & MSM’s actions can be construed to violate 1st Amendment Rights. This is trying to normalize these consistent violations of Americans rights. Free has never been nor will ever be totally free. There will always be some form of constants to free.

So after pushing and inciting racial violence during the summer now it is time to incite censorship and totalitarianism by debunking the first Amendment as understood. Those that thought when we say the radical left is unhinged it’s a lie wait and see how things unfold henceforth Wow! Thank you for that CNN! What matters is peace and harmony, right? Not liberty or evil corporate capitalism. Thank you for the good service you do to the World. We love you CNN.

You are the enemy of the people 'Constitutional experts' do all constitutional experts agree or are these the ones you found that fit your narative Experts that cnn pulled from their payroll CNN needs to go. BannCNN How about Firing Eugene Robison for his racists comments regarding 'white people needing to be deprogrammed'. Shame on him and CNN

The CorruptGOP and FoxNews continue to peddle an alternate reality even after the CapitalRiots Should speech that invokes violence and insurrection be protected? Can they hold public forums about how you start a revolution? Like Walter says, The Supreme Court has roundly rejected Prior Restraint.

The Supreme Court doesn't agree! You can blame the ACLU for everyone being confused about the Constitution and it's meaning. They have done a tremendous harm to our country. Your 1A does not grant you freedom from consequences of your statements. CNN only believes in ultra left wing speech so there’s that.

Those who need to read this most lack the desire to do so. How about this? 👇👇 Hahaha. Get fucked CNN. And so it begins. The war on free speech. Biden is the new president for CHINA... americas trouble is just getting started.... Most people seem to not understand the most basic premise of the constitution. That being that it’s a contract between GOV and Citizen. If those two parties aren’t involved, it’s NOT a constitutional issue.

Joe biden Let us not forget the 'Four Freedoms', including the freedom from want (people going hungry in a world with enough food) and the freedom from fear. FDR proclaimed, hopefully, that such a world could be “attainable in our own time and generation.” We must now make this a reality. But according to you people it does grant you the right to ban conservatives from Twitter...yeuppp

China China China You’re owned by china why should we listen to you? By CNN. 😂😂 they have been the biggest liars of all. What ? Does it not say if I say 'We The People!' three times, I can break any law, and can force anybody to do as I say, when I say, with no hesitation or refusal ? neither does that 13th one!

ArnabGoswami Palwama FalseFlag Operation by narendramodi And kill his own soldiers. NarendraModi Is a terorrist . “Several companies have fired employees who participated in last week's attack on the US Capitol, including a man who wore an ID badge for his direct marketing company” Badgers?! We don’t need no stinking badgers!!

The freedom of the press wasn't intended to protect 24/7 lies and propoganda yet we have CNN in the MSM. Wondering if you should be removed from the air? Cancelled the right to be able to murder other humans in an istance, to bear deadly arms...should never be in any constitution, and freedom of expression should go hand in hand with responsibility for what you say..

Why CNN Will the Obama administration not report al-Qaeda fraudulent funding? Are you colluding? Here's the f*cker that wants to call people Nazi's and Klansman. Time to clean house cnnbrk Politics donlemon FireDonLemon ↘️ Hello everyone Nooie Baby Monitor, Indoor WiFi Pet Camera, 1080P Home Security Camera I think it's a must-have product in every home click and order