![]() |
CRIMINAL JUSTICE |
![]() |
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE |
![]() |
FREEDOM OF PRESS AND SPEECH |
| Rights of Demonstrators | |
![]() |
IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS |
![]() |
LGBT |
![]() |
PRIVACY |
![]() |
RELIGION |
![]() |
RACIAL JUSTICE |
![]() |
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS |
![]() |
TECHNOLOGY |
![]() |
YOUTH |



WHERE PROTECTIONS END
Is all speech protected?
The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it's unpopular. You may criticize the President, the Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn't extend to libel, slander, obscenity, "true threats," or speech that incites imminent violence or law-breaking. If you grab a megaphone during a riot and yell "shoot the cop" or "loot the shop," you may reasonably expect trouble.
Can I talk about government overthrow or taking over the streets?
Yes, for the most part. In the 1940s and '50s, suspected subversives or Communists were often charged with 'incitement to illegal activity' and convicted. Subsequent courts have interpreted the government's ability to prohibit speech as incitement more narrowly. The government can't stop you from talking generally about ideas or future events. But it may ban speech that’s "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'
What if others react violently to what I say?
You can't be held responsible for the way that counter-demonstrators or your own supporters react, as long as your words don't directly incite violence or law-breaking. It's the responsibility of the police to control the crowd.
|
Snapshots in History Date: 1969 At Issue: Firearms, cross-burning, and the promise of vengeance against "niggers and Jews" were just a few features of the Ku Klux Klan rally that landed KKK spokesperson Clarence Brandenburg a conviction for advocating violence under Ohio’s Criminal Syndication statute. Until the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. Result: The Court struck down Brandenburg's conviction, holding it unconstitutional to punish the abstract advocacy of violence or law-breaking. The Justices cemented into law a new test for seditious speech: that it must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis added). |
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly…. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced… that the danger apprehended is imminent…. the evil to be prevented is a serious one."
—Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)


TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Three Principles to Remember
• Conduct, Not Content
• Free Speech is for Everyone
• When, Where and How
About this Guide
• What this guide does and does not answer
Can You Say That?
• What speech is protected
Red Tape: Navigating the Permit Process
• Permit ordinances
• Challenging overbroad ordinances
Speech Plus: Beyond the Spoken Word
• Music and noise
• Leafleting, picketing and solicitation
• Flag desecration
Sit-Ins to Handcuffs: Brushes with the Law
• Civil disobedience
• Your rights on arrest
• Limits to police power
Cheat-Sheet: Tips & Legal Resources
Location
• Public property
• Schools, universities, medical centers and houses of worship
• Private property