The First Amendment

[Estro Felino]

I would like to understand what the First Amendment is really about.
What it entails. What its limits are.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.


Honestly, it sounds like paradoxical to me. It says that the Congress (the legislative power) cannot limit anyone's freedom of speech and freedom of press.
What about privates?
Can private citizens do that? Can private citizens prevent other private citizens from speaking freely?


Why does it sound paradoxical to me? Because if the Supreme Authority of your country, the State, guarantees you a right, automatically all the other entities, private or public, should guarantee you the same exact right.
Thank you in advance.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Honestly, it sounds like paradoxical to me. It says that the Congress (the legislative power) cannot limit anyone's freedom of speech and freedom of press.
What about privates?
Can private citizens do that? Can private citizens prevent other private citizens from speaking freely?

Yes. It happens quite frequently in the business world. Businesses can regulate speech, appearance, and behavior and terminate people who do not follow these regulations.

I suppose you still have freedom to do all what is encompassed in the first amendment, but you're also free to not have a job in these businesses.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. It happens quite frequently in the business world. Businesses can regulate speech, appearance, and behavior and terminate people who do not follow these regulations.

I suppose you still have freedom to do all what is encompassed in the first amendment, but you're also free to not have a job in these businesses.

This is very different from the European juridical tradition, as we can see in the ECHR judgment n. 35786/19 which stated that the Turkish employee could not be dismissed for expressing her freedom of speech online.

A "Like" At The Basis Of The Dismissal: Between Freedom Of Expression And Breach Of The Fiduciary Bond - Global Law Experts

Can a "like" on Facebook damage the fiduciary bond in order to motivate a dismissal?

globallawexperts.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would like to understand what the First Amendment is really about.
What it entails. What its limits are.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.


Honestly, it sounds like paradoxical to me. It says that the Congress (the legislative power) cannot limit anyone's freedom of speech and freedom of press.
What about privates?
Can private citizens do that? Can private citizens prevent other private citizens from speaking freely?


Why does it sound paradoxical to me? Because if the Supreme Authority of your country, the State, guarantees you a right, automatically all the other entities, private or public, should guarantee you the same exact right.
Thank you in advance.

There is no criminal punishment for free speech. But a company can fire a person. If a person says thing that a company may think would harm their reputation that person can be let go. It is only the government that cannot control speech.

As the saying goes, you have free speech, but you are not free from the consequences of that speech.

 

[Estro Felino]

There is no criminal punishment for free speech. But a company can fire a person. If a person says thing that a company may think would harm their reputation that person can be let go. It is only the government that cannot control speech.

As the saying goes, you have free speech, but you are not free from the consequences of that speech.

But there are no limits...I mean...as far as I understood a democrat employer can dismiss an employee even if she is the member of a Trump's fans' club.
Right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But there are no limits...I mean...as far as I understood a democrat employer can dismiss an employee even if she is the member of a Trump's fans' club.
Right?

That can happen. In some states. But many states have included political affiliation as a protected class:

Is Political Discrimination In The Workplace Legal?

We're on the heels of one of the most partisan eras of politics in our country's history. So when it comes to the workplace, can an employer go so far as refusing to hire someone just because they’re a “liberal?”

www.forbes.com

 

[Estro Felino]

That can happen. In some states. But many states have included political affiliation as a protected class:

Is Political Discrimination In The Workplace Legal?

We're on the heels of one of the most partisan eras of politics in our country's history. So when it comes to the workplace, can an employer go so far as refusing to hire someone just because they’re a “liberal?”

www.forbes.com

It also deals with stores, that is public establishments. In 2018, Sarah Huckabee was invited to leave a restaurant just because she was Trump's spokesperson.
So... Huckabee's freedom of speech was not respected, I guess.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But there are no limits...I mean...as far as I understood a democrat employer can dismiss an employee even if she is the member of a Trump's fans' club.
Right?

Back in the 90s, I was given the choice of removing my earring or resigning. I had no legal recourse, since it was in the handbook's dress code policy that male managers were not permitted to wear earrings.

 

[Estro Felino]

Back in the 90s, I was given the choice of removing my earring or resigning. I had no legal recourse, since it was in the handbook's dress code policy that male managers were not permitted to wear earrings.

I understand. I am speaking of an employee whose fan club is outside of the workplace.
And has nothing to do with the workplace.

It deals with political ideas which are expressed outside of the workplace. Not inside of the workplace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It also deals with stores, that is public establishments. In 2018, Sarah Huckabee was invited to leave a restaurant just because she was Trump's spokesperson.
So... Huckabee's freedom of speech was not respected, I guess.

Once again, it is only the government that has to observe it. Unlike Turkey where free speech does not really exist. There the government can put a person in jail for violating their laws on speech:

Turkey

In Turkey blasphemy can be punished by a term in prison.

end-blasphemy-laws.org

 

[Estro Felino]

Once again, it is only the government that has to observe it. Unlike Turkey where free speech does not really exist. There the government can put a person in jail for violating their laws on speech:

Turkey

In Turkey blasphemy can be punished by a term in prison.

end-blasphemy-laws.org

From a certain point of view, the potentialities of the First Amendment are infinite, and are certainly a beacon for the entire Western world.
On the other hand, I think that civil courts will arbitrarily decide what it FA is and what is not, applying double standards on different cases.

 

[Stevicus]

I would like to understand what the First Amendment is really about.
What it entails. What its limits are.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

It's gone through quite a few changes over the past centuries. Perceptions of it have developed into what they are now.

Honestly, it sounds like paradoxical to me. It says that the Congress (the legislative power) cannot limit anyone's freedom of speech and freedom of press.
What about privates?
Can private citizens do that? Can private citizens prevent other private citizens from speaking freely?

Not generally, although the issue of "property rights" also comes into play. If I'm on someone's private property and the owner tells me I have to leave, then I am required by law to respect that, regardless of the reason or even if they have no reason. In the eyes of the law, it's their property, so they have the right. Once I'm off their property, the First Amendment kicks in and I have every right to curse them until I'm blue in the face.

Why does it sound paradoxical to me? Because if the Supreme Authority of your country, the State, guarantees you a right, automatically all the other entities, private or public, should guarantee you the same exact right.
Thank you in advance.

The issue seems to come up when it comes to freedom of speech on public property or what might be seen as a public gathering place (even if it may technically be private property). If someone sets up some kind of public forum and openly invites public input and commentary, to pre-emptively and whimsically disallow someone from doing so might be considered a "bait and switch."

There's also a question as to whether internet service providers and social media platforms should be viewed as utilities or publishers. The law currently protects them from certain liabilities that publishers might face, so they could then be viewed as utilities, in which case they'd be disallowed from cutting someone off just because they don't like their politics. The electric company can't cut your electricity just because they don't like something you said on the internet. The same principle could be applied to internet providers.

One thing that should also be mentioned here is that, the ideas and forms of expression are never totally censored or banned in the strictest sense. Even if people are banned from certain forums and venues, it doesn't prevent them from propagating their views in other ways.

 

[Estro Felino]

There's also a question as to whether internet service providers and social media platforms should be viewed as utilities or publishers. The law currently protects them from certain liabilities that publishers might face, so they could then be viewed as utilities, in which case they'd be disallowed from cutting someone off just because they don't like their politics. The electric company can't cut your electricity just because they don't like something you said on the internet. The same principle could be applied to internet providers.

I totally agree with you.
And in fact in the EU they are considered service providers, as energy companies are.
They are not considered publishers because a publisher is an employer who hires people, he provides no service, so it's a completely different juridical situation.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is very interesting.
Basically every judge can arbitrarily decide what the limits of freedom of speech are.
According to their own religion, political ideas, sensitivity: and the decision will never be impartial, of course.

In France, for example, freedom of speech does have limits but are very, very few and avoidable.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Once a person is indicted in court, their free speech can be constrained to prevent witness intimidation, jury tampering, and attempting to obstruct justice by threatening judges and prosecutors.

 

[Estro Felino]

Once a person is indicted in court, their free speech can be constrained to prevent witness intimidation, jury tampering, and attempting to obstruct justice by threatening judges and prosecutors.

Judicial procedure is a must.
We are dealing with the case someone expresses their view at the workplace, or on TV... or in public venues.

 

[Nakosis]

I would like to understand what the First Amendment is really about.
What it entails. What its limits are.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.


Honestly, it sounds like paradoxical to me. It says that the Congress (the legislative power) cannot limit anyone's freedom of speech and freedom of press.
What about privates?
Can private citizens do that? Can private citizens prevent other private citizens from speaking freely?


Why does it sound paradoxical to me? Because if the Supreme Authority of your country, the State, guarantees you a right, automatically all the other entities, private or public, should guarantee you the same exact right.
Thank you in advance.

You have to understand, the constitution is about what the federal government can and can't do.
It puts limits on the federal government and gives it it's powers.

Unless otherwise stated, it has no legal jurisdiction over anything other than the federal government. Basically it influences state government through appropriations. It bribes the states to enact policy.

So lets say we didn't have this clause and the federal government decided to ban certain speech for itself. It couldn't make the states to ban such speech. It could however bribe them to. Though I suppose they could write something into the constitution that gives them this power but 2/3 of the states would have to pass this amendment.

Or the judicial system could rule that the Feds have such and such powers but this should be based on what is in the constitution.

Or congress act as representatives of their individual state. They can pass laws to grant such power to the federal government.

Anyway the constitution is about limiting the powers of government at the federal level.

 

[Estro Felino]

You have to understand, the constitution is about what the federal government can and can't do.
It puts limits on the federal government and gives it it's powers.

Unless otherwise stated, it has no legal jurisdiction over anything other than the federal government. Basically it influences state government through appropriations. It bribes the states to enact policy.

So lets say we didn't have this clause and the federal government decided to ban certain speech for itself. It couldn't make the states to ban such speech. It could however bribe them to. Though I suppose they could write something into the constitution that gives them this power but 2/3 of the states would have to pass this amendment.

Or the judicial system could rule that the Feds have such and such powers but this should be based on what is in the constitution.

Or congress act as representatives of their individual state. They can pass laws to grant such power to the federal government.

Anyway the constitution is about limiting the powers of government at the federal level.

That's very clarifying.
And very enlightening.
I hope the single states gain more and more strength with their own legislation, because a central power is supposed to coordinate.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That's very clarifying.
And very enlightening.
I hope the single states gain more and more strength with their own legislation, because a central power is supposed to coordinate.

States are not free to make laws that restrict rights granted under the US Constitution or that violate Federal Law.

 

[Estro Felino]

States are not free to make laws that restrict rights granted under the US Constitution or that violate Federal Law.

I meant legislation that gives away rights.