Also known as: protect speech · protects speech · protecting speech · protection of speech · free speech
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
Speech that the First Amendment shields from government regulation absent a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.
A regulation is invalid for overbreadth when it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech in relation to its legitimate sweep.
Speech that the First Amendment shields from government regulation absent a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.
Paula Pierce, editor of a national newspaper, prepares to publish documents detailing government military planning. The government seeks an injunction claiming national security. The prior restraint would suppress core political speech that the First Amendment protects.
A regulation is invalid for overbreadth when it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech in relation to its legitimate sweep.
Phuong Pham stands in a public airport terminal handing flyers to arriving passengers urging support for a local ballot measure. Airport police cite a rule banning all First Amendment activities and order her to stop. The rule reaches virtually every form of expression and therefore suppresses a substantial amount of protected speech.
Piper Patel organizes a small group to chant slogans outside city hall about police practices. Officers arrest her under an ordinance that forbids any conduct interrupting an officer in any manner. The ordinance reaches far more protected speech than its legitimate applications and is therefore facially invalid.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Perry Pratt, a private attorney, sues a magazine for an article accusing him of professional misconduct. Because Pratt is not a public figure, he need only prove negligence rather than actual malice to recover for the false statements that harm his reputation.
Pamela Phillips, a city council member, sues a newspaper for an editorial criticizing her votes on zoning matters. To prevail she must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the paper published the statements with actual malice.
Penelope Price opens an adult movie theater in a commercial zone. The city enacts a zoning ordinance that confines such theaters to a small industrial area. The regulation is content-neutral in purpose and leaves adequate alternative sites, so it does not violate the First Amendment.
Speech receives protection when it falls outside narrow categories such as fighting words, true threats, obscenity, and incitement. Regulations that reach a substantial amount of protected speech in relation to their legitimate sweep are facially invalid.
Truthful commercial speech receives First Amendment protection, though it may be subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny.
Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence to recover damages for defamatory statements about their official conduct or the controversy that made them public figures.
The challenger must show that the law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech judged against its plainly legitimate sweep. If that showing fails, the law may still be enforced against unprotected conduct.
…of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed." Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,…