Freedom of speech: Difference between revisions
Created page with "'''Freedom of speech''' is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The free speech ..." |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Freedom of speech''' is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The free speech implications of prohibiting child pornography have been examined by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in several cases. In ''[[New York v. Ferber]]'', {{ussc|458|747|1982}}, the Court ruled unanimously that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity. In ''[[Osborne v. Ohio]]'', {{ussc|495|103|1990}}, the three dissenting justices stated, "When speech is eloquent and the ideas expressed lofty, it is easy to find restrictions on them invalid. But were the First Amendment limited to such discourse, our freedom would be sterile indeed. Mr. Osborne's pictures may be distasteful, but the Constitution guarantees both his right to possess them privately and his right to avoid punishment under an overbroad law." | '''Freedom of speech''' is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The free speech implications of prohibiting child pornography have been examined by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in several cases. In ''[[New York v. Ferber]]'', {{ussc|458|747|1982}}, the Court ruled unanimously that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity. In ''[[Osborne v. Ohio]]'', {{ussc|495|103|1990}}, the three dissenting justices stated, "When speech is eloquent and the ideas expressed lofty, it is easy to find restrictions on them invalid. But were the First Amendment limited to such discourse, our freedom would be sterile indeed. Mr. Osborne's pictures may be distasteful, but the Constitution guarantees both his right to possess them privately and his right to avoid punishment under an overbroad law." | ||
The freedom of speech of persons in prison or on probation or supervised release is routinely restricted. For example, in ''Harper v. Wallingford'', the 9th Circuit allowed a prison to prevent a prisoner from receiving mail from [[NAMBLA]].<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Harper v. Wallingford|url=http://openjurist.org/877/f2d/728/harper-v-wallingford|vol=877|reporter=F. 2d|opinion=728|court=9th Circuit|date=1989}}</ref> | The freedom of speech of persons in prison or on probation or supervised release is routinely restricted. For example, in ''Harper v. Wallingford'', the 9th Circuit allowed a prison to prevent a prisoner from receiving mail from [[NAMBLA]].<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Harper v. Wallingford|url=http://openjurist.org/877/f2d/728/harper-v-wallingford|vol=877|reporter=F. 2d|opinion=728|court=9th Circuit|date=1989}}</ref> Justice Louis Brandeis' dissent in ''Whitney v. California'', {{ussc|274|357|1927}}, argues that allowing people to speak freely about the merits of legalizing currently prohibited behavior, even when the speech might encourage people to engage in that behavior, prevents the democratic process from being strangled. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} |
Revision as of 19:06, 1 April 2014
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The free speech implications of prohibiting child pornography have been examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in several cases. In New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), the Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity. In Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), the three dissenting justices stated, "When speech is eloquent and the ideas expressed lofty, it is easy to find restrictions on them invalid. But were the First Amendment limited to such discourse, our freedom would be sterile indeed. Mr. Osborne's pictures may be distasteful, but the Constitution guarantees both his right to possess them privately and his right to avoid punishment under an overbroad law."
The freedom of speech of persons in prison or on probation or supervised release is routinely restricted. For example, in Harper v. Wallingford, the 9th Circuit allowed a prison to prevent a prisoner from receiving mail from NAMBLA.[1] Justice Louis Brandeis' dissent in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), argues that allowing people to speak freely about the merits of legalizing currently prohibited behavior, even when the speech might encourage people to engage in that behavior, prevents the democratic process from being strangled.
References
- ↑ Harper v. Wallingford, 877 F. 2d 728 (9th Circuit 1989).