What exactly did the Framers mean by freedom of speech, or of the press? Little is definitively known about the subject. The debates in the First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, are brief and unilluminating. Early state constitutions generally included similar provisions, but there is no record of detailed debate about what those state provisions meant. The Framers cared a good deal about the freedom of the press, as the Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, written by the First Continental Congress in 1774, shows:
The statement mentions some of the values that the Founders saw as inherent in the principle of freedom of the press: the search and attainment of truth, scientific progress, cultural development, the increase of virtue among the people, the holding of governmental officials to republican values, the strengthening of community, and a check upon self-aggrandizing politicians. But broad statements such as this tell us less than we would like to know about what the freedom of the press meant to the Founders as a rule of law, when the freedom would yield to competing concerns, or whether the freedom prohibited only prior restraints or also subsequent punishments.
There were few reported Founding-era court cases that interpreted the federal and state Free Speech and Free Press Clauses, and few Founding-era political controversies excited detailed discussion of what the clauses meant. The governments of the time were small, and the statute books thin. Not many states passed laws restricting commercial advertising. Only one state law banned pornography, and that ban appears to have been unenforced until 1821. Some states had blasphemy laws, but they were largely unenforced from the early 1700s until the 1810s. No laws banned flag-burning, campaign spending, or anonymous speech.
This may but does not necessarily mean that such speech was broadly believed to be constitutionally protected; then, as today, the government did not ban all that it had the power to ban. But the paucity of such bans meant that few people in that era had occasion to define carefully what the constitutional boundaries of speech and press protection might be.
In fact, the most prominent free press debate of the years immediately following the Framingthe Sedition Act controversyillustrated that there was little consensus on even as central an issue as whether the free press guarantee only prohibited prior restraints on publications critical of the government, or whether it also forbade punishment for seditious speech once it was made.
In 1798, the country was fighting the Quasi-War with France. The Federalist Party controlled all three branches of the federal government, and its members suspected many Republican party stalwarts of sympathizing with France and the French Revolution and thus of fomenting disloyalty. Congress consequently made it a crime to publish any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings...with intent to defame the government, Congress, or the President, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations...for opposing or resisting any law of the United States...or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government. Several publishers were in fact convicted under the law, often under rather biased applications of the falsity requirement.
The Federalists actions likely represented a serious constitutional judgment, and not just political expediency. True, malicious falsehoods about the Vice PresidentThomas Jefferson, who was a leading Republicanwere not covered by the law, and the law was scheduled to expire on March 3, 1801, the day before Federalist President John Adamss term was to end. But shortly before the law expired, and after the Federalists lost the 1800 election, Federalist Representatives nonetheless tried to renew the Act; had they succeeded, the Act would have punished libels against President Jefferson and the new Democratic-Republican Congressional majority. The bill was defeated in the House by a 5349 vote, with all but four Federalists voting for it and all Republicans voting against it.
Indeed, in 1799 Federalist Congressman John Marshall (who would soon become Chief Justice), expressed doubts that the Sedition Act was wise but nonetheless argued that the free press guarantee meant only liberty to publish, free from previous restraintfree of requirements that printers be licensed, or that their material be approved before publication. Under this view, which echoed the British law as expounded by Sir William Blackstone, criminal punishment after publication was constitutional, at least if the punishment was consistent with the traditional rules of the common law. Other early American political leaders, such as James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights, argued the opposite: [T]his idea ofthe freedom of the press can never be admitted to be the American idea of it; since a law inflicting penalties on printed publications would have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previous restraint on them.
Likewise, Marshall and other Federalists argued that the freedom of the press must necessarily be limited, because government cannot be...secured, if by falsehood and malicious slander, it is to be deprived of the confidence and affection of the people. Not so, reasoned Madison and other Republicans: even speech that creates a contempt, a disrepute, or hatred [of the government] among the people should be tolerated because the only way of determining whether such contempt is justified is by a free examination [of the governments actions], and a free communication among the people thereon. It was as if half the country read the constitutional guarantee one way, and the other half, the other way.
The Founding generation undoubtedly believed deeply in the freedom of speech and of the press, but then, as now, these general terms were understood differently by different people. Many people did not think about their precise meaning until a concrete controversy arose; and when a controversy did arise, people disagreed sharply on that meaning.
A Supreme Court case, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), illustrates the continuing debate over the original meaning of the clause. The question in McIntyre was whether the government could outlaw anonymous electioneering. The majority dealt with the question based on the Courts twentieth-century case law and twentieth-century First Amendment theories. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the Courts most devoted originalists, however, did focus on the original meaning discussion but reached different results.
Both Justices recognized that there was no record of discussions of anonymous political expression either in the First Congress, which drafted the Bill of Rights, or in the state ratifying conventions. They both recognized that much political speech in the time of the Framers (such as The Federalist Papers itself) was anonymous. Indeed, much political speech justifying resistance to Parliament before the Revolution was also anonymous.
To Justice Thomas, the experience of the Founders in their own use of anonymous speechThe Federalist Papers being a classic examplewas dispositive of what they would have regarded as a vital part of the freedom of speech, particularly where political speech was at issue. Justice Scalia, however, who has a narrower view of what can be accepted as evidence of original intent apart from the text of the pro-vision itself, argued that to prove that anonymous electioneering was used frequently is not to establish that it is a constitutional right; perhaps the legislatures simply chose not to prohibit the speech, even though they had the constitutional power to do so.
Justice Thomas did produce evidence that some Founding-era commentators saw anonymous commentary as protected by the Liberty of the Press, but Justice Scalia replied that many of these were mere partisan cr[ies] that said little about any generally accepted understanding. Justice Thomas found the evidence sufficient to justify reading the First Amendment as protecting anonymous speech. Justice Scalia did not think the historical evidence of what people did necessarily shows much about what people believed they had a constitutional right to do. Instead, Scalia turned to American practices of the 1800s and the 1900s, a source that he considers authoritative where the original meaning is uncertain. A consensus on the original meaning on this subject thus remains elusive.
This having been said, on some questions it is possible to have a good idea of what the Framers thought, based on a combination of pre-Framing, Framing-era, and shortly post-Framing evidence. First, traditional libel law was seen as permissible. Several state constitutions also secured the freedom of the press and the liberty of the press, and under them, defaming another person was understood to be constitutionally unprotected.
Second, the Free Press Clause was seen as covering the press as technologyall who used printing presses to try to communicate to the public at largeand not the press in the sense of a specific industry or occupation. Professional publishers and journalists were not seen as having symbolic expression, such as paintings, effigies (whether just being displayed or being burnt), liberty poles, and the like as tantamount to verbal expression. Both would be equally punishable as libel, if they conveyed false and defamatory messages about someone. But both would also be equally covered by the freedom of speech or of the press.
Fourth, Framing-era sources treat civil tort liability for speech the same as criminal liability for constitutional purposes. Indeed, the very first court cases setting aside government action on constitutional freedom of expression grounds, an 1802 Vermont case and an 1806 South Carolina case, involved civil libel verdicts set aside because of the state constitutions Petition Clauses. Similar cases from that era applied the same principle to state Free Speech and Free Press Clauses.
As noted above, there was considerable controversy about how broad the constitutional protections were, and what the scope of the exceptions to protection might be. But the constitutional protections, whatever their substantive breadth, applied equally without regard to whether the speaker was a professional publisher, whether the communication was symbolic expression or verbal expression, and whether the case involved tort liability or criminal punishment.
Notwithstanding occasional references to originalist debatessuch as the originalist debate between Justices Thomas and Scalia in McIntyretodays free speech and free press law is not much influenced by original meaning. It mostly stems from the experience and thinking of the twentieth century, as the Court first began to hear a wide range of free speech cases only in the late 1910s. This approach has produced the following general free speech rules:
a. Incitement: Speech may be restricted if it is: (i) intended to persuade people to engage in (ii) imminent unlawful conduct, and (iii) likely to cause such imminent unlawful conduct. Outside this narrow zone, even speech that advocates lawbreaking is constitutionally protected. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
b. Libel, fraud, and perjury: Libel, fraud, and perjury may generally be punished if they consist of knowing lies, though generally not if they are honest mistakes (even unreasonable mistakes). There are, however, some situations where even honest mistakes can be punished. United States v. Alvarez (2012); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
c. Obscenity: Hard-core pornography is punishable if: (i) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to a shameful or morbid interest in sex or excretion; (ii) the work depicts or describes, in a way that is patently offensive under contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (iii) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Miller v. California (1973).
d. Child pornography: Sexually themed live performances, photographs, and movies that were made using actual children may be punished even if they do not fit within the obscenity test. This does not cover digitized pictures, drawings, or text materials, which are constitutionally protected unless they are obscene. The Court has reasoned that child pornography is unprotected because it hurts the children involved in its making, so the exception only covers cases where actual children were indeed involved. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002).
e. Threats: Speech that is reasonably perceived as a threat of violence (and not just rhetorical hyperbole) can be punished. Virginia v. Black (2003).
f. Fighting words: Face-to-face insults that are addressed to a particular person and are likely to cause an imminent fight can be punished. More generalized offensive speech that is not addressed to a particular person cannot be punished even if it is profane or deeply insulting. Cohen v. California.
g. Speech owned by others: Intellectual property laws, such as copy-right law, may restrict people from using particular expression that is owned by someone else; but the law may not let any-one monopolize facts or ideas. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985).
h. Commercial advertising: Commercial advertising is constitutionally protected, but less so than other speech (political, scientific, artistic, and the like). Misleading commercial advertising may be barred, whereas misleading political speech can-not be. Commercial advertising may also be required to include disclaimers to keep it from being misleading; such disclaimers cant be required for political speech. Recent cases hold that commercial advertising may not be restricted for paternalistic reasons, because of a fear that people will learn accurate information but will do bad things based on that informationfor example, buy more alcohol, smoke more, or prescribe more expensive pharmaceuticals than the government thinks wise. This rule applies only to speech that proposes a commercial transaction between the speaker and the listener; it does not apply to speech that is merely sold in commerce, such as books, videos, and databases. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011).
Free speech/free press law is sometimes called the tax code of constitutional law. The discussion above suggests how complex the law is, but while some of the complexity may be needless, much of it is inevitable. Communication is in many ways the most complicated of human activities, and no simple rule can properly deal with all the different kinds of harms that it can cause--or all the different kinds of harms that restricting communication can cause.
See original here:
Freedom of Speech and of the Press | The Heritage Guide to ...
- Turkey's crackdown on freedom of speech intensifies [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- Bill of Rights Transcript Text - National Archives and ... [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- 3 Muslims shot dead by Atheist || #muslimlivesmatter - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- Media Studies 104A - 2015-02-10 - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- USA Freedom of Speech and Jesus Christ - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- France Arrests French Comedian Dieudonne 3 Days After Charlie Hebdo Freedom of Speech - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- Charlie Hebdo's "Freedom of Speech" - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- John Robertson on Greg Shapiro's United States of Europe - S3Ep01 - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- The Illuminati: The Freedom of Speech 2015 Conspiracy - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- Muslims oppose insult to Islam in the name of freedom of speech - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- RE: HannibalTheVictor13's resentment over thunderf00t and his "freedom of speech". - Video [Last Updated On: February 12th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2015]
- Policy update restricts demonstrations [Last Updated On: February 14th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 14th, 2015]
- Italian senators pass bill criminalizing denial of genocides [Last Updated On: February 14th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 14th, 2015]
- Michael Buerk Interview - Freedom of Speech & Paris Attacks - Video [Last Updated On: February 14th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 14th, 2015]
- 'Freedom Of Speech' Topic Tuesday #12 - Video [Last Updated On: February 14th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 14th, 2015]
- One dead after shots fired at Copenhagen freedom of speech meeting [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Shots Fired at Copenhagen Free Speech Event: Reports [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- One man dead and three policemen wounded at freedom of speech seminar in Denmark [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Copenhagen caf: two gunmen in terror attack at freedom of speech event [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- One dead in gun attack on Danish freedom of speech meeting [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Free Speech Debate Still Alive After Attack in Denmark [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Esau uses Freedom of Speech as a weapon! - Video [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Copenhagen attacks an 'affront to freedom of speech': Tony Abbott [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Copenhagen suspect known to police [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Copenhagen police kill suspect linked to two fatal attacks [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press - Lincoln University [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Copenhagen Shooting: Deadly attack at free speech meeting with cartoonist who depicted Muh - Video [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Shots fired at Copenhagens Krudttoenden cafe free speech event a report - Video [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Media Studies 104A - 2015-02-12 - Video [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- WallBuilders Live 2015-02-11 Wednesday - Freedom of Speech on College Campuses - Video [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- Yisrael Beytenu at Charlie Hebdo freedom of speech protest - Video [Last Updated On: February 15th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2015]
- TOI debate on freedom of speech wows Kolkata - The Times ... [Last Updated On: February 16th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 16th, 2015]
- Muslims Killing Atheists! - Video [Last Updated On: February 16th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 16th, 2015]
- AP Top Stories February 14 P - Video [Last Updated On: February 16th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 16th, 2015]
- Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson to Receive Freedom of Speech Award [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 17th, 2015]
- Freedom of speech, but... SHOTS - Video [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 17th, 2015]
- Letters to the editor: We must do more to stop terrorists [Last Updated On: February 18th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 18th, 2015]
- Freedom Of Speech Naam Ki Koi Chiz Hoti Hai - Alia Bhatt On AIB Controversy - Video [Last Updated On: February 18th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 18th, 2015]
- DoomShow,Freedom of Speech under attack by Terrrorists - Video [Last Updated On: February 18th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 18th, 2015]
- Greenpeace activist refutes govt charge of being anti-national [Last Updated On: February 19th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 19th, 2015]
- Jailed Al Jazeera journalist concerned about freedom of speech [Last Updated On: February 19th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 19th, 2015]
- Fan claims municipal police violating freedom of speech [Last Updated On: February 19th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 19th, 2015]
- Jailed journalist concerned about freedom of speech [Last Updated On: February 19th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 19th, 2015]
- Denmark: Police launch manhunt for Copenhagen cafe shooter - Video [Last Updated On: February 19th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 19th, 2015]
- Freedom of speech denied outside of Skillet concert Pittsburgh - Video [Last Updated On: February 19th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 19th, 2015]
- Alex Jones is Right! Snowden is Right! Government Crooks Via FaceBook! - Video [Last Updated On: February 21st, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 21st, 2015]
- "McCann Trolling" v "Freedom of Speech" - Video [Last Updated On: February 21st, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 21st, 2015]
- Aamir Khan disapproves AIB Roast, KJo reacts [Last Updated On: February 22nd, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 22nd, 2015]
- South Africa: Post the State of the Nation Address [Last Updated On: February 23rd, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 23rd, 2015]
- The Great Purge of Free Speech Has Begun............ - Video [Last Updated On: February 23rd, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 23rd, 2015]
- Big Brother Watch calls for reform of social media communications laws [Last Updated On: February 24th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 24th, 2015]
- Comment on Have an opinion? Stuff it! by boh-liao [Last Updated On: February 24th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 24th, 2015]
- Sports Hotline: What happened to freedom of speech - have Rangers fans lost their right to offend? [Last Updated On: February 24th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 24th, 2015]
- Freedom of Speech: Canadians support Charlie Hebdos choice to publish images of Prophet Muhammad [Last Updated On: February 24th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 24th, 2015]
- Should there be limitations on freedom of speech? - Video [Last Updated On: February 24th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 24th, 2015]
- Topic Tuesday #39 - Freedom of Speech? (Minecraft Survival Games Gameplay) - Video [Last Updated On: February 24th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 24th, 2015]
- DW Freedom of Speech Award for Raif Badawi [Last Updated On: February 25th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 25th, 2015]
- THROWDOWN THURSDAY: The Four Causes of Anti-Israelism [Last Updated On: February 26th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 26th, 2015]
- FCC Reinstates Net Neutrality, Protecting Open Internet [Last Updated On: February 27th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 27th, 2015]
- CPDP 2015: Online privacy versus freedom of speech. Balancing rights in the EU context. - Video [Last Updated On: February 27th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 27th, 2015]
- Net neutrality lobby victorious after FCC ruling [Last Updated On: February 27th, 2015] [Originally Added On: February 27th, 2015]
- Freedom of speech means tolerating opposing viewpoints [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 2nd, 2015]
- The Death of Freedom of Speech on the Internet - Video [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 2nd, 2015]
- Dangerman - Freedom Of Speech - Video [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 2nd, 2015]
- Rebel Ratepayer Raps 4 Freedom of Speech in City of Melton, Melbourne - Video [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 2nd, 2015]
- Students stand up for free speech at UI [Last Updated On: March 2nd, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 2nd, 2015]
- John Kerry asked to act on murder of Avijit Roy [Last Updated On: March 3rd, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 3rd, 2015]
- Not so Charlie now? [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 4th, 2015]
- ISIS Supporters Threaten "Charlie Hedbo style" Attack Against Twitter Employees [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 4th, 2015]
- AIB trying hard about freedom of speech - Video [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 4th, 2015]
- Freedom of Speech situation in Bangladesh BBC World Service discussion - Video [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 4th, 2015]
- Noam Chomsky on Freedom of Speech and Anti-Fascism [full] - Video [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 4th, 2015]
- AND..Y we should stand up for freedom of speech | AIB Roast | Delhi Elections | AAP - Video [Last Updated On: March 4th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 4th, 2015]
- Vclav Havel Fellowship programme helps young journalists from post-Soviet bloc states [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 5th, 2015]
- Murderers condemned as message of peace is North Herts conferences priority [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 5th, 2015]
- four freedoms speech - FDR - Video [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 5th, 2015]
- Watch what the youth feels about the AIB Roast Controversy & so called "freedom of speech" - Video [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 5th, 2015]
- freedom of speech eminem remix - Video [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 5th, 2015]
- Freedom of speech has no limits- - Video [Last Updated On: March 5th, 2015] [Originally Added On: March 5th, 2015]