THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA

Topics: Legal Terms and Concepts Related to Speech, Press, Assembly, or Petition

• Actual Malice Actual malice is the legal standard the Supreme Court uses to protect the media in libel cases in determining when public officials or figures may win damages…The words must meet the definition of Actual Malice
• Anti-SLAPP Law in California Protections and Responsibilities for Publishers
• Ad Hoc Balancing In First Amendment law, ad hoc balancing involves judging cases on their unique facts, rejecting formulaic tests to determine whether speech is protected or not…
• Advocacy of Illegal Conduct Mere advocacy of illegal conduct was not protected by the First Amendment until Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which created the incitement to imminent lawless…
• Anonymous Speech The Supreme Court has protected anonymity under the First Amendment, but it has balanced this protection against competing interests, notably in the area of…
• Appropriation Appropriation is the unauthorized use of a person’s likeness for financial gain. Although appropriation may involve speech, it is not protected by the First…
• Bad Tendency Test The bad tendency test became the most influential standard used by courts to determine whether criticism of the government during World War I was protected by…
• The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence Test for Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action
• Captive Audience The captive audience doctrine protects people in certain places and circumstances from unwanted speech. It is an exception to the First Amendment rule…
• Central Hudson Test The Supreme Court developed the Central Hudson test for determining when government could limit commercial speech without violating the First Amendment…
• Chilling Effect Chilling effect is the concept of deterring First Amendment free speech and association rights through laws or regulations that appear to target expression…
• Clear and Present Danger Test In the 20th century, the Supreme Court established the clear and present danger test as the predominate standard for determining when speech is protected by the…
• Commercial Speech Commercial speech is a form of protected communication under the First Amendment, but it does not receive as much free speech protection as forms of…
• Community Standards In 1973, the Supreme Court said that community standards must be taken into account in determining whether something was obscene or could be protected by the…
• Contempt of Court Civil contempt of court can be fixed by obeying court orders. Criminal contempt involves violating the dignity of the court and is more likely to raise First…
• Content Based A content-based law discriminates against speech based on the substance of what is communicated. In contrast, a content-neutral law applies without regard to…
• Content Neutral In First Amendment free speech cases, laws that are content neutral apply to all expression without regard to any particular message or substance…
• Corporate Speech Corporate speech refers to the rights of corporations to advertise their products and to speak to matters of public concern, including by spending money in…
• Counterspeech Doctrine The counterspeech doctrine, first articulated by Louis Brandeis in First Amendment jurisprudence in 1927, posits that the remedy for false speech is more speech…
• Criminal Libel In the United States, courts have based decisions regarding slanderous or libelous statements on the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the…
• Defamation Defamation lawsuits can have a chilling effect on free speech. The Supreme Court first applied First Amendment protection from state libel laws in 1964 in New…
• Exacting scrutiny Exacting scrutiny is a form of close judicial review used by the U.S. Supreme Court to evaluate restrictions on speech in campaign finance, election law and…
• Express Advocacy Express advocacy is the use of words like “vote for” in political communications. It’s protected by the First Amendment, but the spending of money on such…
• Expressive Conduct Expressive conduct is behavior designed to convey a message; its function as speech means that it has increasingly been protected by the First Amendment…
• Fair Report Privilege The fair report privilege is a state-law defense to defamation claims used by journalists, although the level of protection may vary by state. Under the…
• Fair Use Fair use allows copyrighted works to be used in ways that would infringe on the copyright. Fair use is a way of preventing copyright from violating of the First…
• False Light False light invasion of privacy, portraying an individual unflatteringly in words or pictures as someone that person is not, is not protected by the First…
• False Speech Because the First Amendment is designed to further the truth, it may not protect individuals who engage in libel. Generally, the government does not stand as…
• Fighting Words The fighting words doctrine, an exception to First Amendment-protected speech, lets government limit speech when it is likely to incite immediate retaliation by…
• Government Speech Doctrine Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker that can assert its own messages, immune from challenges of viewpoint…
• Gravity of the Evil TestThe gravity of the evil test is a refinement of the clear and present danger test to determine when First Amendment free speech may be subject to criminal…
• Group Libel Since the 1900s, group libel, the defamation of an entire group of people, has coexisted uneasily with the First Amendment’s emphasis on individual speech…
• Heckler’s Veto A heckler’s veto occurs when the government restricts speech because of the reactions of opponents of the speech. Courts have said hecklers’ vetoes violate…
• Hicklin Test The Hicklin Test, an obscenity standard originating in England, was initially used in America but did not survive constitutional challenges based on the First…
• Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Many Supreme Court cases upholding restrictions on subversive speech have relied on the idea that such speech is forbidden because it incites violence or…
• Libel and Slander Libel and slander lawsuits can have a chilling effect on free speech. The First Amendment rights of free speech and free press often clash with the interests…
• Libel-Proof Plaintiff Doctrine The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is a concept that insulates a defendant from defamation liability for statements made about someone who has no good…
• Marketplace of Ideas The marketplace of ideas refers to the belief that the test of the truth or acceptance of ideas depends on their competition with one another and not on the…
• Miller Test The Miller Test is the primary legal test for determining whether expression constitutes obscenity.  It is named after the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller…
• Narrowly Tailored Laws The term “narrowly tailored” refers to laws regulating First Amendment rights. These must be written to place as few restrictions as possible on First Amendment…
• Neutral Reportage Privilege Neutral reportage protects from libel claims media that accurately and objectively report newsworthy charges against public figures as part of an ongoing…
• Neutrality, Speech Laws restr1icting speech are subject to strict scrutiny to ensure they are neutral under the First Amendment. They can not discriminate against speech the…
• Noerr-Pennington Doctrine The Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a judicially created defense against certain business torts (wrongful acts) for activity that implicates the First Amendment…
• Overbreadth Overbreadth provides that a regulation of speech can sweep too broadly and prohibit speech protected by the First Amendment as well as non-protected speech…
• Perjury Perjury is not protected by the First Amendment because it undermines the ability of courts to obtain truthful testimony and to effectively administer justice…
• Pickering Connick test The Pickering Connick test refers to a longstanding test in First Amendment law used by courts to determine whether a public employer violated an employee’s…
• Press Access The First Amendment appears to provide a special right for the press, however the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of the “press clause” and held that the…
• Prior Restraint Prior restraint allows the government to review the content of printed materials and prevent their publication. Prior restraint usually violates the First…
• Professional Speech Doctrine The professional speech doctrine is a concept used by lower courts in recent years to define and often limit the free-speech rights of professionals when…
• Public Figures and Officials To promote First Amendment freedom of speech, libel plaintiffs who are public figures or officials must show a publisher acted with actual malice to collect…
• Public Forum Doctrine The public forum doctrine is an analytical tool used in First Amendment jurisprudence to determine the constitutionality of speech restrictions implemented on…
• Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, government officials could violate a person’s First Amendment rights, but not face liability because the law was not…
• Rhetorical Hyperbole Rhetorical hyperbole is a First Amendment-based doctrine that the Court has used to provide protection to exaggerated, over-the-top speech in defamation cases…
• Right of Publicity The right of publicity is a right to legal action, designed to protect the names and likenesses of celebrities against unauthorized exploitation for commercial…
• Right to Receive Information and Ideas The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the right to receive information and ideas flows from the First Amendment protection of free speech…
• Right to Respond and Right of Reply The FCC’s right to respond and reply allowed those criticized on radio and TV broadcasts time to share their viewpoint on air to foster First Amendment…
• Safety Valve Theory Under the safety valve theory of the First Amendment theory, the ability of citizens to freely protest about government deters them from undertaking violent…
• Scarcity Rationale The scarcity rationale is a legal reasoning that provides for more government regulation and limited recognition of First Amendment freedoms for broadcasters…
• Secondary Effects Doctrine The secondary effects doctrine is used when content-based laws are aimed at the secondary effects of protected expression. The laws can more easily pass First…
• Self-government Rationale The self-government rationale justifies free speech protections of the First Amendment by reasoning that self-government depends on a free and robust democratic…
• Substantial Disruption Test The substantial disruption test is the standard developed by the Supreme Court to determine when public school officials may discipline students for their…
• Substantial Truth Doctrine The substantial truth doctrine, stemming from the First Amendment, allows individuals to avoid liability in libel claims if the gist of the statement was…
• Symbolic Speech Symbolic speech consists of nonverbal, nonwritten forms of communication. It is generally protected by the First Amendment unless it causes a specific, direct…
• Time, Place and Manner Restrictions Time, place and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations imposed by the government on expressive activity. These restrictions do not usually violate…
• True Threats A true threat is a statement meant to frighten people into believing they will be seriously harmed by the speaker. True threats are not protected by the First…
• Vagueness Courts in the United States give particular scrutiny to vague laws relative to First Amendment issues because of their possible chilling effect on protected…
• Watts Factors The Watts factors refers to three factors the Supreme Court identified in its true-threat decision to distinguish between speech protected by the First…

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/topic/18/legal-terms-and-concepts-related-to-speech-press-assembly-or-petition

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

The First Amendment and Free Speech Rights: FAQs

Americans care deeply about their constitutional rights, especially the right to speak their minds freely, guaranteed under the First Amendment. But there are many misconceptions and questions about free speech rights—including whether those constitutional protections apply to decisions by social media sites to take down content (or ban users entirely) based on what they were posting.This article explores some of the most common questions about the application, limits, and consequences of the First Amendment’s free-speech protections.

What Does the First Amendment Mean by “Speech?”

As humans, we have many different ways of expressing our thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. While the text of the First Amendment refers to “freedom of speech,” courts have recognized that this right includes many different kinds of expression, including:

• spoken and written words, including social media posts and comments
• theater, dance, visual art, movies, TV shows, videos, and video games
• actions that convey a message (known as “symbolic speech”) like burning a flag
• clothes that express an opinion or demonstrate faith, from T-shirts with slogans to religious headscarves
• signing a petition, and
• money, in the form independent spending related to political campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)).

As technology changes, more ways of expressing ideas or opinions come under the “speech” umbrella. For instance, some courts have found that the protected speech includes:

• computer code, to the extent that it conveys information to human beings who understand it
• “liking” someone else’s social media page, post, or comment; and
• Google search results.

The First Amendment also protects the right not to speak (often referred to as a protection from “compelled speech”). In classic examples from U.S. Supreme Court opinions, this means that students may stay silent during the pledge of allegiance (West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)), and drivers may refuse to display a state’s “Live Free or Die” motto on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977).)

Does the First Amendment Prohibit Speech Restrictions by Private Companies Like Social Media Providers?

Originally, the language in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech”) applied only to the federal government. But as a result of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the early 20th century, the First Amendment now applies to actions by federal, state, and local government to outlaw speech (“prior restraint” in legalese) or to punish people after they’ve already expressed their views. Because that includes government agencies and officials, it might be a violation of free speech rights when a police department or elected official bans users from social media accounts for their opinions. (Learn more about when government officials may block critics from social media.)

As a general rule, however, private businesses, organizations, and individuals are free to limit speech however they wish, as long as they aren’t violating contracts or other laws (including federal antidiscrimination laws or state laws protecting political activity by employees). For example, it’s usually not considered a violation of the First Amendment if:

• a private employer fires a worker for expressing political opinions the boss doesn’t like
• a private religious school disciplines a student for wearing a T-shirt with a pro-LGBT message
• a private media company won’t publish content that doesn’t align with the owner’s political views
• a web hosting company refuses to host a platform that embraces white supremacy or allows calls to violence and insurrection, or
• a social media company enforces its policies on acceptable content by taking down posts or suspending users’ accounts.

Can Big Tech Companies Be Treated Like State Actors When They Restrict Free Speech?

As big tech has become more and more powerful, some commentators have called for the largest tech companies to be treated like government for purposes of the First Amendment, thus limiting their ability to restrain social media users’ speech. We heard more of these calls in the wake of actions by Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and other providers to suspend or permanently ban Donald Trump’s social media accounts, based on fears that he would incite further violence following the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Using the analogy of a company town, where a private corporation acts like government, these critics point to big tech’s control over the public conversation. This “state actor” argument is based on a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions holding that constitutional protections against government actions apply when private companies exercise “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State” (Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1975)).

So far, however, courts have found that the First Amendment does not prohibit social media providers from taking down users’ posts. Although the Supreme Court has characterized social media as “the modern public square” (Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017)), it hasn’t directly addressed this question yet.

Does the First Amendment and Federal Law Protect Actions by Social Media?

Free speech arguments cut two ways. While some people complain that social media companies violate their constitutional rights by taking down posts or suspending their accounts, the companies argue that it would violate their own free speech rights if the government tried to regulate their decisions about what to publish on their sites. Not only that, but part of a federal law known as “Section 230” (47 U.S.C. § 230) protects social media providers from civil lawsuits for their good-faith actions to restrict access to objectionable content. (Another part of the law gives them immunity for content that users post on their platforms.)

Debates will continue over big tech’s ability to control online speech. Under current law, however, social media companies are free to apply their private moderation policies to restrict users’ access or ability to post content on their platforms.

What Kind of Speech Isn’t Protected Under the First Amendment?

As with all constitutional rights, there are limits to freedom of expression. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out a few exceptions to First Amendment protections, including speech that is intended to incite the listeners to take immediate illegal action, threatens someone with immediate violence, or meets the strict legal definition of obscenity. But the Court hasn’t recognized a general exception for hate speech. (Learn more about the exceptions to free speech protections and how the First Amendment applies to hate speech.)

Balancing Freedom of Expression With Other Constitutional Rights

Sometimes, free-speech rights compete with other constitutional rights—which can require a balancing act to make sure the different rights involved are protected as much as possible. For instance, judges may issue gag orders in order to control publicity during trials and protect the constitutional right to a fair trial with an impartial jury. But these orders shouldn’t be so broad that they unnecessarily limit free-speech rights.

Do Some People Have Limited Free Speech Rights?

Not all U.S. residents enjoy the same level of constitutional protection when they speak their minds. For different reasons, the Supreme Court has given government more authority than usual to restrict speech by public school students, public employees, and prisoners. Also, while legal immigrants have the same basic right to freedom of expression as citizens, some people who aren’t legal permanent residents—including undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders—may face certain limits on their freedom of expression. (Learn more about immigrants’ free speech rights.)

K-12 Public School Students

As the Supreme Court has said, public school students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)). But the Court also recognized that First Amendment rights for children in public K-12 schools may be more limited than for adults in other settings, because schools have an obligation to keep students safe and provide a good learning environment. (Learn more about freedom of expression for students.)

Members of the U.S. Military

People don’t lose all of their First Amendment rights when they join the military. But when courts look at whether military rules violate those rights, they generally apply different standards than they would in civilian contexts. As the U.S. Supreme Court has reasoned, “the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society,” with special disciplinary needs (Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974)). So, for instance, courts have upheld military discipline against service members for speech that advocates disloyalty to the United States or expressive conduct that is disrespectful to the flag—both of which would generally be protected under the First Amendment for civilians.

Public Employees

Similarly, civilian employees don’t give up all of their free speech rights just because they work for the government. Still, public employers may discipline or fire employees for what they say, write, or post online in certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has set out guidelines for deciding when government employees have the right to speak their minds without interference from their bosses, depending on the context and content of their communications.

• On-duty communications. The First Amendment doesn’t protect anything employees say or write as part of their job. This is true even when they’re communicating about important issues like government misconduct. (Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).) However, even when public employees are talking about information they learned at work, the Garcetti rule won’t apply if their communications aren’t within the scope of their official duties. Some states have laws protecting whistleblowers, but their safeguards vary.
• Off-duty speech on public issues. The First Amendment might protect public employees when they speak out as private citizens about matters that would concern the general population—such as corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement, or discriminatory policies at governmental agencies. In a situation like this, courts will balance the employee’s free speech rights against the employer’s need to carry out its public service efficiently and without disruption. In practice, however, courts generally defer to the public employers’ judgment. As a result, public employees are often disciplined or fired for off-duty posts on their private social media accounts that shed a bad light on the agencies they work for.
• Public employees’ private gripes. Government employees generally don’t have a constitutional right to air their private grievances with their employers, particularly when their speech undermines office relationships and the boss’s authority.

Prisoners

Prisoners have the right to express their political views, but prison and jail administrators have a lot of leeway to restrict how and when inmates can express themselves and what they can read. Those restrictions must be related to “neutral” goals like security rather than an attempt to censor certain viewpoints. For instance, prisons can censor incoming mail, limit and monitor phone calls, and prevent prisoners from books that are dangerous or pornographic. source

Personalizing First Amendment Jurisprudence:
Shifting Audiences & Imagined Communities to Determine Message Protection in Obscenity, Fighting Words, and Defamation- Download PDF University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

God leaves NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, it’s the child who refuses to return to his Father!

Our Father is always available, never drunk, never lies, never allows any harm to his children… (a perfect father, hence the name God, the creator)
the harm that one may perceive is not harm but an awakening, if you join with him by asking for his help
pray with good intent in your heart, believe like you once believed in Santa! That means NO DOUBT, 100% PURE TRUST in him!
He never lies, He will deliver! God, through Jesus and only him will give you what you need when you need it!

Gospel Mt 11:28-30

“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened,
and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,
for I am meek and humble of heart;
and you will find rest for yourselves.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

Trust God!

He Lives in Those Whom Invite Their Father In

Nothing Formed Against You Shall Prosper !