Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has often struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected expression. Below are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (deeds), that the court has ruled is entitled to First Amendment protection. The court ruled that Grokster can be sued if its software is used to illegally exchange music and movies. The court also said cable companies can deny competitors access to broadband lines. Less rigorous control is applied to substantively neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government can prohibit certain statements that may undermine peace or violence. For more information on the categories of unprotected and less protected speech, see Advocacy for Unlawful Actions, Fighting Words, Commercial Speech, and Blasphemy. The right to freedom of expression includes other means of expression that convey a message.

The level of protection afforded to speech also depends on the forum in which it takes place. Jameel Jaffer: Absolutely. One of the reasons for this is that all the important Supreme Court decisions that have defined freedom of expression for our society were made 50 years ago. We are now building a framework that will truly shape what free speech will look like for this generation or generations to come. Getting the right questions of free speech is a predicate to getting the big questions of democracy. At the moment, we do not seem to be answering questions about freedom of expression properly. Medwed: People often make such arguments. There`s a lot going on. A defendant will say that he will be punished for his views on the First Amendment and that it is unconstitutional. But these efforts have so far largely failed. And here`s why.

First, I think it`s important to note that the First Amendment does not provide general protection for all speech. The government can impose reasonable restrictions on time, place and movement, even on freedom of expression. And not all speeches are subject to strong constitutional guarantees. I am not proposing this because I think there are more important things than freedom of expression. I propose this because I think it will best serve freedom of expression. What does it mean to be a free speech absolutist at a time when social media companies have a perfectly plausible claim that they exercise First Amendment rights, and users of social media companies have a perfectly plausible claim that their free speech interests will be removed if platforms exclude them from these private spaces? And governments sometimes have a perfectly plausible claim that the public needs to know certain things about business in order to understand how companies shape or distort public discourse? These are all free speech arguments of one kind or another, and the First Amendment must take them all into account. Use: Beyond the use during digital or face-to-face orientations, the video can serve as a resource on university websites that explains students` speaking rights. On the Sunday episode of What Next: TBD, I spoke to Jameel Jaffer about speaking online and how to make rules that truly serve the next generation. Our conversation has been edited and summarized for clarity. It is important to understand that time, place, and behavior restrictions are valid where applicable. However, the First Amendment does not, in most cases, target the actual content of the speech. The purpose of the university is the pursuit of knowledge, so it has a moral obligation to maintain an environment free from harassment and significant disruption of the educational experience.

I was at the ACLU for 14 years, and eight of those years were under the Obama administration. I think I`ve probably filed 100 lawsuits against the Obama administration, many of which are about freedom of speech and association, and privacy in particular. We`ve represented whistleblowers, we`ve sued for government secrecy, we`ve sued I don`t know how many lawsuits for government surveillance, all First Amendment or First Amendment lawsuits. I wasn`t thrilled with the Obama administration and the First Amendment. I didn`t expect to agree with so many of President Obama`s speeches about disinformation. One of the things I loved was how humble it was. Medwed: Well, morally, they certainly have a great responsibility in creating this abominable environment where racial hatred could thrive. And it is foreseeable that some people will react to these terrible views. Legally, however, Paris is much more difficult. On the one hand, the legal theory here is often the complicity or responsibility for complicity that these white supremacist groups are aiding or supporting – „encourage“ is just a fancy legal word to encourage – they promote racial hatred and have therefore acted as accomplices to these racially motivated crimes. It can therefore be argued that they acted, aided or abetted these crimes.

This idea of a public square was the subject of a speech by former President Barack Obama in April on disinformation. It was the first time Obama, who had long been friends with Big Tech, publicly criticized social media companies for the way their algorithms distort online language. They had a sometimes hostile relationship with the former president. How did you react to this speech? I just think it`s the space, the kind of metaphorical or even metaphysical space where we interact with each other, exchange information, discuss problems, come to consensus. Where do we do these things? We are doing these things more and more online and more and more especially on social media. Forget about legal things. As a kind of statement of fact, these are the spaces whose integrity is important for democracy. If you encounter language that raises red flags for you, but you are not necessarily sure that it crosses the line in unprotected categories, you should contact the Dean of Students or Public Safety.