12345...102030...


Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

Continued here:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Main content

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

Visit link:

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

View post:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Main content

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

Original post:

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Main content

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

Continued here:

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

Go here to read the rest:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

Here is the original post:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Main content

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

See original here:

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

See the rest here:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

See the rest here:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of Speech by Norman Rockwell – Facts about the …

Freedom of Speech was the first in a series of four paintings which depict examples of the four basic freedoms of Americans. Freedom of Speech depicts a young man who appears to be of the American working class, given his plain clothing over which he wears a plain, brown jacket. Protruding from a front pocket of the jacket is a folded document that appears to bear importance in the matter at hand.

This main character of the painting is standing in the midst of a meeting of importance to the locality in which he lives and/or works. He is surrounded by older gentlemen, wearing traditional suits and ties, but who are looking at him with a degree of curiosity mixed with consideration for the young mans oratory. The young man appears to be unfazed by his modest attire in the midst of formality, focusing instead on the subject matter that concerned him to the extent that he felt it necessary to attend this meeting and speak his mind.

Freedom of Speech was painted by renowned American artist, humorist, and painter, Norman Rockwell. The inspiration for the painting came from the State of the Union address, delivered in January of 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in which he set forth the four basic freedoms that Americans have the right to enjoy. This painting was the first of the series and appeared on the cover of The Saturday Evening Posts February 20th issue.

Mr. Rockwell, in his usual style, includes discreet inferences in this painting which may not be immediately obvious upon initial viewing. For instance, the bench immediately in front of the young man is conspicuously empty. This has been viewed by some as an invitation to the viewer to attend the meeting as well. Others see the empty bench as a portrayal of the fact that someone did not feel compelled to attend the meeting.

Another interesting fact behind this painting is Mr. Rockwells inclusion of the faces of people he knows in his work.

And, finally, the manner in which he pointedly signs his own name in the dark background of the painting depicts his own humility in the face of such a powerful message.

Visit link:

Freedom of Speech by Norman Rockwell – Facts about the …

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Main content

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

Read more from the original source:

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

More:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

There is no free press: Freedom of speech in Mexico | DW …

With more than 33,000 murder investigations openedin 2018, Mexico hasone of the highest murder rates in the world. For journalists, it is the deadliest country not at war, according to a December 2018 report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). Their figures, which do not include those who are missing and not confirmed dead or cases still under investigation, countnine journalists murdered in 2018, down from 12 in 2017.

Among those journalists killed in 2018 were reporters who covered stories related to government local corruptionand those who were investigating organized crime and drug cartels. In January, 22-year-old reporter Agustin Silva Vazquez, who worked for the regional newspaper El Sol del Istmo, went missing in the southern state of Oaxaca. In Quintana Roo, web editor Ruben Pat was gunned down in the street in July, just a month after one of his colleagues, reporter Jose Guadalupe Chan Dzib, was murdered. And in Chiapas, journalist Mario Leonel Gomez Sanchez was shot and killed by gunmen.

The violence against journalists knows no boundaries and remains unprosecuted. “In Mexico, we have essentially a 100 percent impunity rate. The state is not investigating itself,” said Ana Cristina Ruelas, regional director of Mexico and Central America for Article 19, an organization which documents media freedom.

“This has been the reality for some years now, since the beginning of the war against the drug cartels in 2006,” said Ruelas. “What we’ve seen is a state policy that tries to reduce the flow of information that gets to the public.”

The silence of journalists

That impunity is part of a vicious circle of violence that has seen many journalists leave their line of work after being threatened. Media outlets are increasingly self-censoring, freezing particular reporters out and killing stories before they go to publication.

Investigative reporter Anabel Hernandez, the recipient of the DW Freedom of Speech Award 2019, was one of those journalists whose stories were not published by newspapers after she revealed corruption at the highest levels. In a speech accepting the Golden Pen of Freedom Award in 2012, she spoke about the impact that had on press freedom.

“Silence foments crime and impunity and there is no free press in Mexico,” Hernandez said. “Television stations intentionally omit certain subjects sometimes out of fear and sometimes out of complicity. Important newspapers or prestigious magazines demonstrate the lack of press freedom each time they remove a thorny subject from their pages or they publish reports without crediting the author.”

Like many of her colleagues, Hernandez has fled Mexico and is living in exile due to the death threats she has received. For those who have remained in the country, the outlook is grim.

“Every year, we have documented an increase in violence against journalists,” Ruelas told DW.

Mexican investigative journalist Anabel Hernandez will receive the 2019 DW Freedom of Speech Award

In 2015, she said, her organization recorded397 aggressions against journalists,ranging from threats and intimidation to espionage or the use of defamation laws at the federal level. In 2018, an election year that was the most violent electoral process in recent historywith more than 100 politicians murdered, that number had increased to 544. At least half of these documented aggressions, Ruelas said, came from state actors.

Spying on journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists likewise noted that technology has contributed toincreased danger for journalists operating in Mexico. The organization put out an advisory warning that Pegasus spyware, which is used to collect data and monitor mobile phone usage, was found being used against investigative journalists in the country.

“Mexico has been ground zero for Pegasus’s deployment against journalists,” wrote the Columbia Journalism Review in 2016when the software was originally discovered. “At least six reporters have been targeted there, according to exhaustive research by both Citizen Lab and the Mexican digital rights group R3D. Those attacks coincided with major journalistic investigations that challenged the Mexican government.”

Although these dangers have led some journalists to leave the field, those who remain have changed their habits to ensure that stories of corruption and crime still get out. In the state of Veracruz, labeled the deadliest place in the world to be a journalist after 17 journalists were murdered there between 2010 and 2016, media professionals have banded together in their investigations.

“Journalists are getting used to measuring the risk before they publish,” Ruelas told DW. In some cases, that means publishing an investigative report across various channels simultaneously to protect the journalist and their sources. In others, that means working together as a group to piece together a story.

While the Human Rights Department at the Interior Ministry in Mexico has recognized the dangers that journalists in the country face, according to Ruelas, the new government has not yet laid out their approach to combating the threats against the media. Instead, she noted, President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador, who took office in December 2018, has singled out journalists for criticism at a daily briefing, a move that has led to increased attention, especially via social media.

“It’s very worrying to have digital threats in a context like ours, where violence is high and there are no consequences for the perpetrators,” Ruelas said.

“In a country where impunity is the rule, the silence of journalists is very fruitful,” said Ruelas.

Read the original post:

There is no free press: Freedom of speech in Mexico | DW …

Europes Freedom of Speech Fail Foreign Policy

Over the past decade, there has been a global decline in respect for freedom of expression. And Europes democracies traditionally understood to be places in which these rights are both honored and protected have not been immune.

According to Reporters Without Borderss Press Freedom Index, which measures trends in media freedom at both the global and regional levels, all but two European Union-member states (plus Iceland and Norway) have a lower press freedom score in 2016 than they did in 2013. In some cases, there has been marked backsliding: Germany went from a score of 10.24 in 2013 to 14.8 in 2016 (the lower the score, the more respect for press freedom); the United Kingdom has gone from 16.89 to 21.7; and Poland is among the worst cases, jumping from a respectable 13.11 to a deeply worrying 23.89. These scores reflect changes in important indicators such as media independence, self-censorship, and rule of law, among others.

Freedom of expression has always been unevenly protected in Europe. This is because of a philosophical divide that cuts across the continent: Some European countries can be classified as militant democracies. In these countries, the state limits freedom of speech and association when it is deemed to threaten other values outlined in the constitution, such as democracy and the freedom of others. Germany, which regularly bans or has banned various Communist, National Socialist, and Islamist organizations, is a classic example.France, which prohibits Holocaust denial, shuts down mosques it deems too radical and aggressively enforces laws against hate speech and glorification of terrorism, also falls mainly into this camp.

While there are historical justifications for some of these policies, they raise important questions and produce awkward results. Why is it impermissible to deny the Holocaust but permissible to deny the Armenian genocide? Or the evils of the slave trade and colonialism for that matter? What is the metric used for determining whether something is hate speech, or just permissible criticism? Increasingly, laws against hatred and offense have come to target controversial but non-violent speech including that of comedians, politicians critical of immigration, as well as Muslims vocally opposed to Western foreign policy. Moreover, there seems to be little evidence suggesting that suppressing speech leads to higher levels of tolerance in liberal democracies. A new report from Germanys domestic intelligence agencyshows not only that there were 500 more extreme-right entities in 2015 than in 2014, but also that there has been a 42 percent increase in violent acts by right-wing extremists over that same period. American NGO Human Rights First also documented a doubling of anti-Semitic hate crimes in France from 2014-2015. A recent report by two Norwegian researchers suggests that an environment where controversial expressions are filtered out may increase the risk of extremist violence.

On the other end of the spectrum are the Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom the liberal democracies that have traditionally been more tolerant of intolerance (though no European state offers as robust a protection of free speech as the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution). Lately, however, it seems that even these states are edging closer toward a militant democracy-style approach.

This past spring, a majority in the Danish Parliament broke with 70 years of tolerating most instances of extreme expressions to enact a law that will criminalize religious teaching that explicitly condones certain crimes such as murder, violence, and even polygamy. Under the law, an imam or priest who explicitly condones the spanking of children or polygamy as part of his or her religious teaching would face up to three years in prison, whereas a politician or ordinary citizen condoning such practices would be free to do so. The law also bars religious preachers who have expressed anti-democratic views from entering the country.

Denmark has been a bastion of free speech protections in Europe, including, at times, from groups that have advocated for totalitarian ideologies, both secular and religious. During the Cold War, the Danish Communist Party held seats in Parliament and freely published pro-Kremlin propaganda. Nazis were also allowed to regroup and advocate their supremacist ideas despite the Nazi occupation of Denmark from 1940-45. Notwithstanding this permissive environment, neither Nazism nor Communism has managed to seriously establish themselves in Denmark. Despite worrying levels of radicalization among some Danish Muslims, Denmark is hardly poised to become a caliphate anytime soon. And yet there are signs that the land that fiercely stood up for the right of its newspapers to publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has begun shifting away from this commitment to free expression. On Constitution Day in early June, Danish Justice Minister Sren Pind who once called himself the Freedom Minister because of his determination to spread liberty to developing countries in the global south announced his intention to criminalize the grossly negligent sharing of extremist material online. If the law is enacted, linking to online magazines such as the Islamic States Dabiq would mean jail time.

Denmarks efforts have been inspired by various counterextremist measures that the historically tolerant U.K. has taken over the past decade. In a speech in May, for example, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intentions to pursue a law that will, according to the Guardian, allow the government the ability to ban non-violent extremist organizations, gag individuals and empower local councils to close premises used to promote hatred. The government has previously defined extremism as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. This definition is vast and sweeping: It would essentially label anyone opposed to liberal democracy as an extremist.

The movement toward a more German approach to free speech, one that silences the perceived enemies of an open society, has not only taken root at the national level but is increasingly the guiding philosophy of European institutions. The final limits on free speech in Europe are ultimately determined by the European Court of Human Rights, which is under the auspices of the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights. The court can pass legally binding judgments against member states. In a number of cases, the court has determined that member states may ban extremist religious and political organizations (such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an Islamist movement committed to the nonviolent establishment of a global caliphate) and prohibit mere glorification of terrorism. The court views hate speech, including Holocaust denial, as an abuse of convention rights and therefore allows it no legal free speech protections. This sets a relatively low bar for the protection of controversial speech across 47 European states and leaves wiggle room for states eager to exploit such openings to further expand the permissible limits on expression.

EU law, which has primacy over national law, is increasingly developing new limitations on speech that apply to all member states. The Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia, adopted in 2008, obliges EU states to criminalize hate speech, albeit not in a uniform manner. Lately, the European Commission has signaled that it wants to see the Framework Decision enforced more vigorously. In a speech on Oct. 2, 2015, EU Commissioner for Justice and Consumers Vera Jourova said that member states must firmly and immediately investigate and prosecute racist hatred. She added, I find it disgraceful that Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in only 13 member states. The commission has even suggested that legal proceedings could be brought against member states that have not fully transposed the Framework Decision that is, the commission is considering bringing member states before the European Court of Justice for offering freedom of expression protection that is too strong.

But the most serious blow to freedom of expression in Europe may be the recently signed Code of Conduct (COC) between the European Commission and Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube. Under the COC, these tech giants have agreed to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary. What constitutes illegal hate speech is not clear. The COC refers to the Framework Decision and national laws. However, the Framework Decisions definition of what constitutes incitement to hatred is far from clear, and national hate speech laws vary widely. While 13 countries ban Holocaust denial, many others do not. In Sweden, an artist was imprisoned for six months for racist and offensive posters exhibited in an art museum; the same posters were freely exhibited in Denmark. Should Facebook remove all content that may constitute Holocaust denial, or only when uploaded in, say, Germany or France? Should an internet meme based on the offensive Swedish posters be guided by Danish or Swedish standards? This uncertainty may force companies to err on the side of caution and adopt a bias toward preventive censorship.

The COC essentially privatizes internet censorship with none of the accountability, publicity, and legal safeguards that follow from proper legal procedures. Since social media has become essential for traditional media to reach a wide audience, the COC could cause a ripple effect of self-censorship on the part of outlets that fear their content could be removed from social media platforms for being hate speech. The COC will not only affect freedom of expression in the EU, but also the EUs ability to campaign credibly for freedom of expression and internet freedom in countries where censorship is the norm. After all, why should the Putins and Xi Jipings of the world take lessons on internet freedom from an organization that imposes nebulous limits on the internet?

Democratic Europe still remains a bastion of free speech compared with most other places in the world. But the closing of the European mind, by prohibiting expressions that agitate against Europes fundamental values, moves these democracies uncomfortably close to practices that the EU is supposed to guard against. This trend bears an uncanny (albeit imperfect) resemblance to the infamous Section 106 of the East German penal code, which criminalized anti-state propaganda, including agitation against the constitutional basis of the socialist state and social order of the GDR (German Democratic Republic) and glorification of fascism and militarism. Europe should make sure that such rot does not take hold in its democratic foundation, which cannot hold firm without a robust protection of free speech.

Photo credit: OZAN KOSE/AFP/Getty Images

View original post here:

Europes Freedom of Speech Fail Foreign Policy

Freedom of Speech by Norman Rockwell – Facts about the …

Freedom of Speech was the first in a series of four paintings which depict examples of the four basic freedoms of Americans. Freedom of Speech depicts a young man who appears to be of the American working class, given his plain clothing over which he wears a plain, brown jacket. Protruding from a front pocket of the jacket is a folded document that appears to bear importance in the matter at hand.

This main character of the painting is standing in the midst of a meeting of importance to the locality in which he lives and/or works. He is surrounded by older gentlemen, wearing traditional suits and ties, but who are looking at him with a degree of curiosity mixed with consideration for the young mans oratory. The young man appears to be unfazed by his modest attire in the midst of formality, focusing instead on the subject matter that concerned him to the extent that he felt it necessary to attend this meeting and speak his mind.

Freedom of Speech was painted by renowned American artist, humorist, and painter, Norman Rockwell. The inspiration for the painting came from the State of the Union address, delivered in January of 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in which he set forth the four basic freedoms that Americans have the right to enjoy. This painting was the first of the series and appeared on the cover of The Saturday Evening Posts February 20th issue.

Mr. Rockwell, in his usual style, includes discreet inferences in this painting which may not be immediately obvious upon initial viewing. For instance, the bench immediately in front of the young man is conspicuously empty. This has been viewed by some as an invitation to the viewer to attend the meeting as well. Others see the empty bench as a portrayal of the fact that someone did not feel compelled to attend the meeting.

Another interesting fact behind this painting is Mr. Rockwells inclusion of the faces of people he knows in his work.

And, finally, the manner in which he pointedly signs his own name in the dark background of the painting depicts his own humility in the face of such a powerful message.

Follow this link:

Freedom of Speech by Norman Rockwell – Facts about the …

Benefits Of Freedom of Speech Benefits Of

Benefits of Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech prohibits the government from arbitrarily or unnecessarily interfering with ones personal opinion, or speech for that matter. As stated in the constitution, every citizen has the opportunity to censure the federal government to support their ostracized, bizarre ideas, which may be offensive to those around you.

1. Shared responsibility

For starters, freedom of speech gives a person a certain level of responsibility, enhanced trust, frankness, and better sense of liability. In addition, free speech acts a tool in nurturing social evolution. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that we all enjoy freedom of speech, the government must put measures into place to stop groups that promote offensive views, such as racism, fascism, sexism and terrorism.

2. Enhances self-esteem

Another reason why the government should encourage freedom of speech is to help people develop poise to express their views without fear of being condemned or punished. By doing so, people can challenge the rules and laws and fight for what they believe is right. Such inspired folks are usually front-runners in economic development.

3. New ideas foster development

The benefits of freedom of speech are somewhat obvious, for instance, sharing of ideas can enhance productivity at the workplace, not to mention that it fosters social relationship. Although the benefits of freedom of speech are evident, some groups may abuse this privilege by promoting racist views, as well as fascism.

4. Encourages social evolution

While it is not prudent to restrict freedom of speech, the government should set up laws to ensure all individuals have the chance to express their views without any discrimination, especially when the laws are enforced by the federal government. Also, it protects your rights of expression and information in cases of war like circumstances.

Freedom of speech has its limitations when a group of individuals promote biased ideas, like sexism, fascism, terrorism, and racism.

Related

Please help us improve. Please rate this article:

View original post here:

Benefits Of Freedom of Speech Benefits Of

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Main content

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

See the original post:

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of speech, Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a clear and present dangeri.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint (see Pentagon Papers). See also censorship.

Read the original post:

Freedom of speech | Britannica.com

Freedom of Speech by Norman Rockwell – Facts about the …

Freedom of Speech was the first in a series of four paintings which depict examples of the four basic freedoms of Americans. Freedom of Speech depicts a young man who appears to be of the American working class, given his plain clothing over which he wears a plain, brown jacket. Protruding from a front pocket of the jacket is a folded document that appears to bear importance in the matter at hand.

This main character of the painting is standing in the midst of a meeting of importance to the locality in which he lives and/or works. He is surrounded by older gentlemen, wearing traditional suits and ties, but who are looking at him with a degree of curiosity mixed with consideration for the young mans oratory. The young man appears to be unfazed by his modest attire in the midst of formality, focusing instead on the subject matter that concerned him to the extent that he felt it necessary to attend this meeting and speak his mind.

Freedom of Speech was painted by renowned American artist, humorist, and painter, Norman Rockwell. The inspiration for the painting came from the State of the Union address, delivered in January of 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in which he set forth the four basic freedoms that Americans have the right to enjoy. This painting was the first of the series and appeared on the cover of The Saturday Evening Posts February 20th issue.

Mr. Rockwell, in his usual style, includes discreet inferences in this painting which may not be immediately obvious upon initial viewing. For instance, the bench immediately in front of the young man is conspicuously empty. This has been viewed by some as an invitation to the viewer to attend the meeting as well. Others see the empty bench as a portrayal of the fact that someone did not feel compelled to attend the meeting.

Another interesting fact behind this painting is Mr. Rockwells inclusion of the faces of people he knows in his work.

And, finally, the manner in which he pointedly signs his own name in the dark background of the painting depicts his own humility in the face of such a powerful message.

Read more:

Freedom of Speech by Norman Rockwell – Facts about the …


12345...102030...