# data[].attributes.body
1. Is there a law that protects us from private employers?

2. Why does freedom of speech only protect us against the government?

3. Can Thailand have freedom of speech in the future?

4. Is there a law that protects free speech for scientists?

5. Should scientific fails be researched to see whose voices were silenced?

# data[].attributes.body
1. There are 8 laws that protect us from private employers those include:

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

The Affordable Care Act

The Social Security Act

Each state has its unemployment insurance agency, jobless benefits are offered through a joint federal-state program.

OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The Civil Rights Act of 196

2. Because the 1st amendment states that freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation.

3. There are various laws for example the Whistleblower Protection laws that protect whistleblowers who report misconduct, fraud, or unethical behavior within organizations, including scientific institutions. These laws are designed to safeguard individuals who expose wrongdoing.

# data[].attributes.body
Supreme court and first amendment

Free speech issues did not even reach the Supreme Court until 1919.

Back then the Supreme Court didn't support the protection of freedom of speech.

The Schenck v. U.S. decision happened in 1919 where a Socialist Party member was convicted for distributing anti-war materials.

A turning point came in Abrams v. U.S., where even though a conviction was upheld, two dissenting justices, Holmes and Brandeis, argued that speech should only be punished if it posed a "clear and present danger" of immediate harm.

After that, Freedom of Speech is more protected until 1950 and McCarthyism.

The Supreme Court, influenced by the fear and suspicion of the time, weakened the "clear and present danger" test.

It ruled that speakers could be punished for advocating overthrowing the government, even if the likelihood of such an event was minimal.

As a result, many political activists were prosecuted and jailed simply for advocating communist revolution and thousands of Americans lost their jobs.

Finally, in 1969 the KKK case in Brandenberg v. Ohio had established a new standard for them.

Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, “imminent lawless action.” Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected.

The First Amendment ignored

In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government.

In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control.

Peaceful protesters opposing U. S. entry into World War I were jailed for expressing their opinions.

In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags because they symbolized communism.

The First Amendment has slowly evolved with laws that strictly protect against them so everyone can freely voice their opinion.

What does protected speech include?

The First Amendment does not only protect pure speech but also protects symbolic speech.

A big example is Tinker v. Des Moines where students wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Number 10

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition - this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.
But in spite of its "preferred position" in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI - hardly ancient history - that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

The path to freedom was long and arduous. It took nearly 200 years to establish firm constitutional limits on the government's power to punish "seditious" and "subversive" speech. Many people suffered along the way, such as labor leader Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were "fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder." Or Sidney Street, jailed in 1969 for burning an American flag on a Harlem street corner to protest the shooting of civil rights figure James Meredith. (see box)

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IGNORED

Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted. In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

Throughout the 19th century, sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used to suppress the speech of abolitionists, religious minorities, suffragists, labor organizers, and pacifists. In Virginia prior to the Civil War, for example, anyone who "by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves" was subject to a one-year prison sentence.

The early 20th century was not much better. In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted injunctions prohibiting strikes and other labor protests. Violators were sentenced to prison. Peaceful protesters opposing U. S. entry into World War I were jailed for expressing their opinions. In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as "radical" by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was founded in 1920.

Free speech rights still need constant, vigilant protection. New questions arise and old ones return. Should flag burning be a crime? What about government or private censorship of works of art that touch on sensitive issues like religion or sexuality? Should the Internet be subject to any form of government control? What about punishing college students who espouse racist or sexist opinions? In answering these questions, the history and the core values of the First Amendment should be our guide.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

During our nation's early era, the courts were almost universally hostile to political minorities' First Amendment rights; free speech issues did not even reach the Supreme Court until 1919 when, in Schenck v. U.S., the Court unanimously upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member for mailing anti-anti-war leaflets to draft-age men. A turning point occurred a few months later in Abrams v. U.S. Although the defendant's conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-war leaflets was upheld, two dissenting opinions formed the cornerstone of our modern First Amendment law. Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis argued speech could only be punished if it presented "a clear and present danger" of imminent harm. Mere political advocacy, they said, was protected by the First Amendment. Eventually, these justices were able to convince a majority of the Court to adopt the "clear and present danger test."

From then on, the right to freedom of expression grew more secure - until the 1950s and McCarthyism. The Supreme Court fell prey to the witchhunt mentality of that period, seriously weakening the "clear and present danger" test by holding that speakers could be punished if they advocated overthrowing the government - even if the danger of such an occurrence were both slight and remote. As a result, many political activists were prosecuted and jailed simply for advocating communist revolution. Loyalty oath requirements for government employees were upheld; thousands of Americans lost their jobs on the basis of flimsy evidence supplied by secret witnesses.

Finally, in 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.

WHAT DOES "PROTECTED SPEECH" INCLUDE?

First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech" - books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech" - nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas. In its 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and again in 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances.

Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. That would be what is called viewpoint discrimination - and that is unconstitutional.

When a protest crosses the line from speech to action, the government can intervene more aggressively. Political protesters have the right to picket, to distribute literature, to chant and to engage passersby in debate. But they do not have the right to block building entrances or to physically harass people.

FREE SPEECH FOR HATEMONGERS?

The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected.

SPEECH & NATIONAL SECURITY

The Supreme Court has recognized the government's interest in keeping some information secret, such as wartime troop deployments. But the Court has never actually upheld an injunction against speech on national security grounds. Two lessons can be learned from this historical fact. First, the amount of speech that can be curtailed in the interest of national security is very limited. And second, the government has historically overused the concept of "national security" to shield itself from criticism, and to discourage public discussion of controversial policies or decisions.

In 1971, the publication of the "Pentagon Papers" by the New York Times brought the conflicting claims of free speech and national security to a head. The Pentagon Papers, a voluminous secret history and analysis of the country's involvement in Vietnam, was leaked to the press. When the Times ignored the government's demand that it cease publication, the stage was set for a Supreme Court decision. In the landmark U.S. v. New York Times case, the Court ruled that the government could not, through "prior restraint," block publication of any material unless it could prove that it would "surely" result in "direct, immediate, and irreparable" harm to the nation. This the government failed to prove, and the public was given access to vital information about an issue of enormous importance.

The public's First Amendment "right to know" is essential to its ability to fully participate in democratic decision-making. As the Pentagon Papers case demonstrates, the government's claims of "national security" must always be closely scrutinized to make sure they are valid.

UNPROTECTED EXPRESSION

The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that so-called "fighting words ... which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace," are not protected. This decision was based on the fact that fighting words are of "slight social value as a step to truth."

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court held that defamatory falsehoods about public officials can be punished - only if the offended official can prove the falsehoods were published with "actual malice," i.e.: "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Other kinds of "libelous statements" are also punishable.

Legally "obscene" material has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection. Unfortunately, the relatively narrow obscenity exception, described below, has been abused by government authorities and private pressure groups. Sexual expression in art and entertainment is, and has historically been, the most frequent target of censorship crusades, from James Joyce's classic Ulysses to the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe.

In the 1973 Miller v. California decision, the Court established three conditions that must be present if a work is to be deemed "legally obscene." It must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Attempts to apply the "Miller test" have demonstrated the impossibility of formulating a precise definition of obscenity. Justice Potter Stewart once delivered a famous one-liner on the subject: "I know it when I see it." But the fact is, the obscenity exception to the First Amendment is highly subjective and practically invites government abuse.

THREE REASONS WHY
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS
ESSENTIAL TO A FREE SOCIETY

It's the foundation of self-fulfillment. The right to express one's thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself - and as such, deserves society's greatest protection.

It's vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth. The eminent 19th-century writer and civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view - even those that are "bad" or socially harmful - should be represented in society's "marketplace of ideas."

It's necessary to our system of self-government and gives the American people a "checking function" against government excess and corruption. If the American people are to be the masters of their fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny.

THE ACLU: ONGOING CHAMPION OF FREE EXPRESSION

The American Civil Liberties Union has been involved in virtually all of the landmark First Amendment cases to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and remains absolutely committed to the preservation of each and every individual's freedom of expression. During the 1980s, we defended the right of artists and entertainers to perform and produce works of art free of government and private censorship. During the 1990s, the organization fought to protect free speech in cyberspace when state and federal government attempted to impose content-based regulations on the Internet. In addition, the ACLU offers several books on the subject of freedom of expression:

RESOURCES: Ira Glasser, Visions of Liberty, Arcade, 1991. J. Gora, D. Goldberger, G. Stern, M. Halperin, The Right to Protest: The Basic ACLU Guide to Free Expression, SIU Press, 1991. Franklin Haiman, "Speech Acts" and the First Amendment 1993, SIU Press, 1993. Nadine Strossen, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex and the Fight for Women's Rights, Anchor Press, 1995.
To order call 1-800-775-ACLU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Expression | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Number 10 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition - this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom."

# data[].attributes.headline
What you need to know about Hate Speech and Free Speech

# data[].attributes.subject
What you need to know about Hate Speech and Free Speech

# data[].attributes.body
When does hate speech become a crime?

Hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment

However, when hate speech turns into fighting words it is not protected.

For example, if a white student-directed a racial slur at a black student, one could argue that the person did so as a means of racial harassment.

How can people act against hate speech?

Any hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, and those who try to interfere with it through actions or violence are legally violating someone's right to free speech, regardless if one believes interfering is "morally" right.

Instead of trying to outright ban hate speech and risk a lawsuit, it's better to add more speech to the conversation.

For example, people can choose to protest because it is protected by the 1st amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hate speech is when a person or a group of people is attacked based on factors such as their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. According to the Centers for Educational Justice & Community Engagement at the University of California Berkeley, hate speech includes written and verbal communication.

Of course, where the First Amendment becomes tricky is when it comes to people who have discriminatory ideologies against others, as they are also protected under the law. For example, one can vehemently disagree with the views of the Ku Klux Klan, which believes in white supremacy, but unless members of the Klan act on those words, their speech and right to assemble is protected under the Constitution.
When does hate speech become a crime?
Given that even hate speech is seen as a right, it's been largely protected in the courts. Some college campuses, for example, have tried to implement "speech codes," typically with good intentions of making campuses inclusive and ridding them of discriminatory language. In court, however, these acts have typically been found unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment and the right for people to speak freely.

While typically hate speech has to be acted on to turn into a crime, there is a special exception called the "fighting words" clause, which stipulates that if someone uses words to "incite an immediate breach of peace", then it's no longer protected. The example the ACLU gives is if a white student directed a racial slur at a black student, one could argue that the person did so as a means of racial harassment. This reasoning, however, hasn't been argued in the Supreme Court before, so it's hard to tell if it would be successful in the future.

Additionally, hate speech can violate certain freedom of speech laws like slander (trying to damage someone's reputation with false spoken words) or libel (trying to damage someone's reputation through writing). In some cases, hate speech could also violate rules as technical as copyright violations or non-disclosure agreements depending on how and where those opinions are articulated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Need to Know About Hate Speech and Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent protest at UC Berkeley against online troll Milo Yiannapoulos brought up questions concerning how hate speech differs from free speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Freedom of speech-the right to express opinions without government restraint-is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are-and aren't-protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word "parrhesia" means "free speech," or "to speak candidly." The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights-the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn't specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn't be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1990, reversed a Texas court's conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn't Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren't protected include:

Obscene material such as child pornography

Plagiarism of copyrighted material

Defamation (libel and slander)

True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren't protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I. The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the "clear and present danger" standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called "content neutrality." Content neutrality means the government can't censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa, organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn't bite-they ruled in favor of the students' right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don't apply in private schools.

Sources

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts.
Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts.
Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech - Origins, First Amendment & Limits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Freedom of speech-the right to express opinions without government restraint-is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom.

# data[].attributes.headline
First Amendment -  Rights, U.S. Constitution and Freedoms

# data[].attributes.subject
First Amendment -  Rights, U.S. Constitution and Freedoms

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion, and the press. The Amendment was created along with the other 9 amendments under the Bill of Rights - a written document that protects civil liberties under U.S. laws.

The 1st Amendment text reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech gives Americans the right to express themselves without having to worry about government interference.

The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what types of speech are protected.

Material labeled as pornographic has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection however determining whether it is or not has been problematic.

Fighting words is also not protected however determining what words qualify is a case-to-case thing.

You may still face consequences from private institutions due to your speech. For example, you may be banned from a social network or fired from your job.

Freedom of Press

This freedom is similar to freedom of speech, in that it allows people to express themselves publicly.

These forms include newspapers, television, films, books, and more.

The government does not have the right to tell the media what they can or cannot publish.

This freedom is crucial to democracy. Historically, the media have served as a watchdog and as a representative for the public investigating government operations, identifying wrongdoing, and informing the public.

It is necessary to promote transparent and accountable governance.

Freedom of Religion

Prohibits the government from establishing a “state” religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

Right to assemble Right to petition

The 1st amendment protects the people to form together peacefully for social, economic, political, or religious purposes.

It also protects the right to protest against the government.

It protects the right to file a lawsuit against the government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill of Rights

During the summer of 1787, a group of politicians, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, gathered in Philadelphia to draft a new U.S. Constitution.

Antifederalists, led by the first governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They felt the new constitution gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states. They further argued that the Constitution lacked protections for people's individual rights.

The debate over whether to ratify the Constitution in several states hinged on the adoption of a Bill of Rights that would safeguard basic civil rights under the law. Fearing defeat, pro-constitution politicians, called Federalists, promised a concession to the antifederalists-a Bill of Rights.

James Madison drafted most of the Bill of Rights. Madison was a Virginia representative who would later become the fourth president of the United States. He created the Bill of Rights during the 1st United States Congress, which met from 1789 to 1791 - the first two years that President George Washington was in office.

The Bill of Rights, which was introduced to Congress in 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

First Amendment Text

The First Amendment text reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While the First Amendment protected freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition, subsequent amendments under the Bill of Rights dealt with the protection of other American values including the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Freedom of speech gives Americans the right to express themselves without having to worry about government interference. It's the most basic component of freedom of expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what types of speech is protected. Legally, material labeled as obscene has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection, for example, but deciding what qualifies as obscene has been problematic. Speech provoking actions that would harm others-true incitement and/or threats-is also not protected, but again determining what words have qualified as true incitement has been decided on a case-by-case basis.

Freedom of the Press

This freedom is similar to freedom of speech, in that it allows people to express themselves through publication.

There are certain limits to freedom of the press. False or defamatory statements-called libel-aren't protected under the First Amendment.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, prohibits the government from establishing a "state" religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

While not explicitly stated, this amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.

Right to Assemble, Right to Petition

The First Amendment protects the freedom to peacefully assemble or gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political or religious purposes. It also protects the right to protest the government.

The right to petition can mean signing a petition or even filing a lawsuit against the government.

First Amendment Court Cases

Here are landmark Supreme Court decisions related to the First Amendment.

Schenck v. United States, 1919: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft during World War I.

The Schenck decision helped define limits of freedom of speech, creating the "clear and present danger" standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court viewed draft resistance as dangerous to national security.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Texas v. Johnson, 1990: Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court reversed a Texas court's decision that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. This Supreme Court Case invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag-burning.
Freedom of Religion:
Reynolds v. United States (1878): This Supreme Court case upheld a federal law banning polygamy, testing the limits of religious liberty in America. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but not from actions such as marriage.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961): The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to close on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews argued the law was unfair to them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. In this case, Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, worked in a textile mill. When her employer switched from a five-day to six-day workweek, she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. When she applied for unemployment compensation, a South Carolina court denied her claim.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): This Supreme Court decision struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to reimburse Catholic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in those schools. This Supreme Court case established the "Lemon Test" for determining when a state or federal law violates the Establishment Clause-that's the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from declaring or financially supporting a state religion.

Ten Commandments Cases (2005): In 2005, the Supreme Court came to seemingly contradictory decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled that the display of a six-foot Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital was constitutional. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses violated the First Amendment.
Right to Assemble & Right to Petition:
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): When Alabama Circuit Court ordered the NAACP to stop doing business in the state and subpoenaed the NAACP for records including their membership list, the NAACP brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of the NAACP, which Justice John Marshall Harlan II writing: "This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations."

Edwards v. South Carolina (1962): On March 2, 1961, 187 Black students marched from Zion Baptist Church to the South Carolina State House, where they were arrested and convicted of breaching the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to reverse the convictions, arguing that the state infringed on the free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition of the students.

Sources

The Bill of Rights; White House.
History of the First Amendment; The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Schenck v. United States; C-Span.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government.

# data[].attributes.body
history

Ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle

Appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century.

Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

U.S., First Amendment protects freedom of speech

December 15, 1791

part of the Bill of Rights-first Ten Amendment to the U.S. Consitution

The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship.

The right to express ideas & information.

Flag Burning

freedom of speech can protect symbolic speech that expresses an idea

flag burning is an example of symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment.

Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

1990, Texas court's conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag.

When isn't speech protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment, including obscene material, plagiarism, defamation, true threats, and speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting crimes.

The Supreme Court established the limitations of free speech in 1919 with the Espionage Act of 1917.

Charles Schenck was arrested under the Act for urging draft dodgers, upheld by the "clear and present danger" standard.

Eugene Debs was arrested under the Act for encouraging others not to join the military, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Debs v. United States.

Freedom of Expression

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called "content neutrality."

Content neutrality means the government can't restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free speech in school

In 1695, students at a public high school organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting.

They got suspended from school.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands

# data[].attributes.body
What are Anti-SLAPP laws?

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect free speech from being threatened or shut down by people on the receiving end of critical speech. They are designed to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.

What are the lawsuits for SLAPP laws?

The goal is to force someone to take back a critical statement or not make it in the first place. If not they would face an expensive lawsuit.

How does it affect people's expressions?

To prevent a SLAPP, people will frequently agree to apologize and change their statements as well as promise not to speak out in the future. This also prevents other people from speaking about this topic because of how they might get criticized for it.

How does it protect freedom of speech?

1. Protect a wide range of First Amendment activities.

2. They put the burden on the person who's suing

3. They accelerate a final decision.

4. They allow immediate appeal of the initial decision.

5. They award attorney fees and court costs to a winning defendant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. We are free to speak out on issues we care about without fear that the government will stop us or punish us.

But it can be risky to criticize public figures. Powerful people often have the financial resources to respond to criticism with a lawsuit.

This type of lawsuit is called a SLAPP, which stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The goal of a SLAPP is to get a person to retract their criticism of the person or business. But there are now a growing number of anti-SLAPP laws designed to protect speakers from the threat of going to court to defend their First Amendment right to free speech.

What are anti-SLAPP laws?

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect free speech from being threatened or shut down by people on the receiving end of critical speech. They are designed to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.

What are SLAPP lawsuits?

University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George Pring created the term SLAPP in the 1980s to refer to a lawsuit whose primary purpose is harassment and intimidation.

The goal is to force someone to take back a critical statement - or not make it in the first place - or else face an expensive lawsuit.

Both the financial and emotional toll are often greater for the defendant than the plaintiff, the person bringing the suit. Most SLAPP suits are filed by powerful people or corporations to protect their reputations against criticism from average people. They are often well-resourced and able to rely on their legal teams to do all the work. Defendants have less money to pay lawyers and must actively participate in their own defense.

How do SLAPP lawsuits affect people's free expression?

To end or prevent a SLAPP, people will frequently agree to apologize and change their statements and promise not to speak out in the future. This sends a clear message to others who might speak critically as well. The result is the chilling of free speech and healthy debate about important matters of public concern.

Most SLAPP suits are based on claims of defamation or damaging someone's reputation. But they can also claim a breach of contract, civil rights violations, interfering with the right to do business, or copyright or trademark infringement. They range from complex lawsuits filed in federal court to individual disputes over purely local matters.

How do anti-SLAPP laws protect free expression?

An anti-SLAPP law is designed to prevent SLAPP lawsuits.

Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws. But despite repeated attempts, Congress has never passed a federal anti-SLAPP law. People in 17 states, and many people who are sued in federal court, lack protection from SLAPP suits.

Anti-SLAPP laws make it easier for someone who has been sued for exercising their First Amendment rights to get a SLAPP lawsuit dismissed quickly.

More important, anti-SLAPP laws deter people from trying to use lawsuits to silence others. While anti-SLAPP laws vary from state to state, all offer one or more of the following protections:
1. They protect a wide range of First Amendment activities.
Anti-SLAPP laws require that the person being sued show that the lawsuit is targeting their First Amendment rights. Some only apply to statements made in an official government proceeding, like allegations made during a public-school board meeting or in front of the city council. Others apply to any speech on a matter of public concern, no matter where, when or how it occurs. These strong anti-SLAPP laws will also give the speaker the benefit of the doubt that the speech is about a matter of public concern.
2. They put the burden on the person suing.
In most lawsuits, the person being sued can only get the case dismissed in its early stages if they can clearly show they will win; if not, the case can potentially continue for months or even years at great expense.

Anti-SLAPP laws recognize the importance of free speech by putting the burden on the person who is suing to demonstrate why the lawsuit needs to happen. Once the person being sued shows the lawsuit is challenging his or her free speech rights, an anti-SLAPP law requires the person bringing the lawsuit to demonstrate they are likely to win the case. If they cannot do so, the case will be dismissed.
3. They accelerate a final decision.
An initial step in most lawsuits is a long and expensive process where each side collects information from the other in advance of trial. There are often several pre-trial hearings on legal issues. Anti-SLAPP laws pause these time-consuming steps until the court decides who should win.
4. They allow immediate appeal of the initial decision.
Most court cases require that the entire process plays out before the losing party can appeal. Anti-SLAPP laws often say that a defendant can immediately appeal a decision, saving significant time and money.
5. They award attorney fees and court costs to a winning defendant.
The U.S. legal system doesn't require that a person who unsuccessfully files a lawsuit pay the legal fees and costs of the person they sued. This means successfully defending yourself in a lawsuit is often a hollow victory. Yes, you won but you also had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to win. An anti-SLAPP law says that if the person suing to stop the speech loses, then they must pay the legal fees and court costs of the person being sued.

What are some examples of SLAPP lawsuits?

Some of the biggest First Amendment cases in our history meet the definition of a SLAPP:

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) is considered the most important protector of press freedom. It set the high standard that a public figure filing a defamation lawsuit must show that an allegation made about them was false and that the speaker who made the mistake knew or should have known it was wrong. This standard makes it possible to challenge and criticize powerful people. The lawsuit involved a paid political advertisement in The New York Times designed to raise money for the civil rights movement by criticizing law enforcement response to civil rights protests. It was filed by L.B. Sullivan, Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner, even though he wasn't named in the advertisement. Sullivan said that certain facts in the article were incorrect; the paper countered that they were minor mistakes and didn't matter in terms of the public's overall view of the treatment of civil rights protesters by southern law enforcement. The lawsuit was filed in Alabama where a jury would be more sympathetic to Sullivan than to the northern newspaper. The jury awarded Sullivan $500,000 to send a message to civil rights activists. But the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the verdict and protected the newspaper.

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982) also had roots in the civil rights movement. In 1966, a local branch of the NAACP organized a boycott against white merchants who discriminated against Black people in Mississippi. The business owners sued the NAACP. Most protesters' actions were protected by the First Amendment, but a few people took unprotected actions like threatening store owners. A Mississippi court ruled for the business owners, ordering the NAACP to pay $3.5 million in damages. It took 16 years before the Supreme Court overturned that verdict, saying "the boycott clearly involved constitutionally protected activity" designed "to bring about political, social, and economic change."

Most SLAPP suits involve everyday speech by average people:

In 2003, the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition picketed several buildings in New York where tenants lived in terrible conditions. Instead of fixing the problem, building owners sued the NWBCCC for trespass, libel and wrongful interference with business relationships. The court cases went on for several years. They were eventually dismissed but cost NWBCCC more than $1 million in legal fees and forced the organization to focus on defending the lawsuit rather than advocacy efforts.

In 2010, college student Justin Kurtz's car was towed from his apartment complex. He started a Facebook group called "Kalamazoo Residents against T&J Towing," which criticized the towing company's aggressive practices. T&J Towing filed a lawsuit seeking $750,000 in damages from Kurtz for alleged defamation. The lawsuit lasted eight months before Kurtz and the company decided to resolve their case on their own, out of court. Kurtz was not reimbursed for his legal fees but did exact some measure of revenge: the case went viral with The New York Times eventually publishing a front-page article and the Facebook group grew to 14,000 members.

In 2010, the Washington City Paper, a free weekly newspaper, published an article that catalogued many alleged wrongdoings by Dan Snyder, the then-owner of Washington, D.C.'s professional football team. He was not amused and filed a defamation lawsuit. Snyder's lawyers warned the corporate owners of the City Paper that "the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value" of the newspaper. This letter, in effect, said it would be easier for the City Paper to apologize and go away than stand by its story. The paper did just that, and Snyder eventually dropped the lawsuit.

In 2019, then-Congressman Devin Nunes filed - and lost - a lawsuit against Twitter and the creators of two parody accounts "Devin Nunes' Cow" (a mocking reference to his family farm) and "Devin Nunes' Mom." Nunes lived in California but filed his lawsuit in Virginia, where there aren't anti-SLAPP laws. He demanded $250 million. He lost but has filed several different lawsuits since 2018 seeking more than $900 million from those he believes has wronged him. To date, he has not won any of them.

What are some examples of anti-SLAPP laws that protected free speech?

Anti-SLAPP laws have successfully protected speakers in a variety of cases throughout the country:

In 2003, a Baltimore developer tried to sue future tenants for $25 million after the tenants criticized changes to building plans. The lawsuit was dismissed under the Maryland anti-SLAPP law.

In 2015, Robert and Michele Duchouquette posted an unfavorable review of Pets for Care on Yelp. The pet-sitting company sued for defamation and for violation of a clause in their service contracts that says clients cannot make negative comments about them. Pets for Care sought up to $1 million and removal of the negative review. Using the Texas anti-SLAPP law, the Duchouquettes got the lawsuit dismissed. They were reimbursed for more than $23,000 in legal fees and other costs.

In 2017, Phoenix business owner Charlie Lai criticized commercial property owner True North's remodeling plans. True North tried to sue. Lai used the Arizona anti-SLAPP law to get the lawsuit dismissed, and the court ordered True North to pay his attorney fees.

Anti-SLAPP laws and the First Amendment

While the First Amendment provides strong legal protection for a free press and for our rights as individuals to speak, assemble and petition the government, when a lawsuit challenges these freedoms, it can get costly. Anti-SLAPP laws serve as a great equalizer. They protect those who might otherwise have to self-censor in the face of legal threats. They allow us to speak out on matters that affect our everyday lives.
Kevin Goldberg is the First Amendment specialist for the Freedom Forum. He can be reached at [email protected] .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-SLAPP Laws: Protecting Your Right to Speak Up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anti-SLAPP laws protect free speech from being shut down by people on the receiving end of critical speech. Here's everything to know.

# data[].attributes.headline
Students organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War.

# data[].attributes.subject
Students organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Main content

Students' freedom of speech and symbolic speech rights in schools.

<iframe width="550" height="350" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" src="https://www.uscourts.gov/audio/tinker-v-des-moines-1969" title=" Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) "></iframe>

Decision Date: February 24, 1969

Background:

At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War. Students planned to wear black armbands to school to protest the fighting but the principal found out and told the students they would be suspended if they wore the armbands. Despite the warning, students wore the armbands and were suspended. During their suspension the students' parents sued the school for violating their children's right to free speech. A U.S. district court sided with the school, ruling that wearing armbands could disrupt learning. The students appealed the ruling to a U.S. Court of Appeals but lost and took their case to the United States Supreme Court.

Decision:

In 1969 the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students. The high court agreed that students' free rights should be protected and said, "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Main content Students' freedom of speech and symbolic speech rights in schools. Decision Date: February 24, 1969 At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, students organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War. Students planned to wear black armbands to school to protest the fighting but the principal found out and told the students they would be suspended if they wore the armbands.

# data[].attributes.body
1791, Free speech was established in the First Amendment in the United States.

1948, the UN recognized free speech as a human right in the International Declaration of Human Rights. They stand against censorship and improve literacy rates by reading banned books.

1215, Protection of speech was first introduced when the Magna Carta was signed in.

Greek philosopher Socrates, in 399 BC, was persecuted for an early argument promoting free speech.

1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court decided that speech can be restricted if the speaker strives to provoke an “imminent” and “likely” violation of law.

1919, In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Freedom of Speech Crash Course Government and Politics #25

# data[].attributes.subject
Freedom of Speech Crash Course Government and Politics #25

# data[].attributes.body
The primary reason why we have freedom of speech is to allow public criticism of the government.

Some countries that don't allow free speech can make you go to jail.

The First Amendment protects you only from the government stopping you from saying what you want.

The 1st amendment only protects us against the government, not private people. For example, if you dislike some rules that your boss did, you can't go up to him wearing arm bands and start protesting since he can sue you and you won't be protected by the 1st amendment.

Level of protection:

1. Political Speech

any law regulation or executive act that limits political speech is always struck down by the court.

The First Amendment protects speech even though it advocates the use of force or encourages people to not follow the law.

2. Symbolic Speech

Wearing armbands, making signs, and even burning the U.S. flag is protected by the first amendment.

hate speech is also protected even though it could extremely offend others.

University have tried to punish hate speech but it has been unsuccessful because of this law.

3. Commercial Speech (Political related)

Spending money on political campaigns are speech that is protected by the 1st amendment

Fighting words are not protected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics #25

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone has a right to speak freely without fear and it's a requirement for all other of our freedom, so we can live in a free society.

It does allow every citizen to get involved in the policy and social processes of a country.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tinker v.s. Des moines Independent community school district

# data[].attributes.subject
Tinker v.s. Des moines Independent community school district

# data[].attributes.body
In December 1965 a group of students in Des Moines decided to protest against the Vietnam War.

Many students decide to wear black arm bands to school to mourn the loss of people who died during the war.

The principal of the school created a policy that any student with the armband would be asked to be removed, if not they will get suspended.

4 students wore an armband and all refused to remove it so they got suspended.

The school board president, Ora Niffenegger, defended the ban as a “disciplinary measure” against “disturbing influence” in school.

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union argued that the armband rule should be removed.

In the first round, the students lost because although it is a symbolic act that falls under the 1st amendment they are concerned about the disciplined atmosphere of the classroom that outweighs the free speech concern.

The case moved to the Supreme Court.

Dan Johnston argued for the students, pointing out that the district had allowed other kinds of provocative political speech.

The students won as the judges ruled out that students should be given free speech within the walls of the school.

This caused a revolution for freedom of speech in schools, such as you are given the right to wear political slogans on your clothing at public schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tinker v. Des Moines: Protecting student free speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On February 24, 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that students at school retain their First Amendment right to free speech.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Is there any way that freedom of speech improves our society?

2. Will there be any limits when we are free to speak?

3. Will we get punished by the law for what we think?

4. Will our country have freedom of speech?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Scientific Importance of free speech

# data[].attributes.subject
The Scientific Importance of free speech

# data[].attributes.body
Bill Hicks quote "Freedom of speech means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which do not agree with,"

Many people believe that there's no point in free speech because it's all about the measurements and data, however with these examples you would be wrong.

Marshall & Warren, 1984

Back in the day Marshall and Warren proved that stomach problems are caused by infection from a certain type of bacteria.

Even with the evidence to back it up people still disagree and the establishment refused to publish their papers.

Marshall appointed himself as his experiment subject and proved that their hypothesis was true, but no one believed him.

It took them 2 decades until they got the recognition they deserved.

If their opponents had legal power to silence them, it would take them longer to be accepted.

Scientific debates

When a researcher disagrees with their opponent's studies they can write an open letter to the journal editor to that paper which would be published.

The former researcher can then publish a rebuttal and post it to the public.

This would make the public see the argument clearly and decide for themselves which one they would believe

The Unfairness of this

Sometimes a researcher would be allowed to silence the other side, this is bad because how the better theories won't be released to the public.

Most of the time a bad theory would replace the good theory.

The Silenced Opinions (Lysenkoism)

Research of Mendelian genetics has received widespread acceptance, however, for the people in the Soviets, this theory was incompatible with their ideology.

Scientists in the Soviet Union who agreed with this theory were imprisoned or executed.

The Space shuttle challenger disaster could've been avoided because the engineers who worked on the project knew about the problem.

However, the engineers were silenced therefore disaster struck.

NASA tried to be secretive about the disaster, however, Richard Feynman a physicist decided to speak out.

In my personal opinion, I think scientist should be given free speech because their work may save thousands of lives. I disagree with the ideology of judging a proven theory and killing off innocence people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Scientific Importance of Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These are merely tools that help us to accomplish a far greater mission, which is to choose between rival narratives, in the vicious, no-holds-barred battle of ideas that we call "science".

# data[].attributes.headline
FREE SPEECH: Why does it matter? (Chapter 12)

# data[].attributes.subject
FREE SPEECH: Why does it matter? (Chapter 12)

# data[].attributes.body
With freedom of speech we have the freedom to disagree and don't need the government to decide which side is wrong.

Freedom of speech is an underrated part of a prosperous life in the U.S. where we are pretty much free to say whatever we want.

To articulate their opinion and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free Speech: Why does it matter? (Chapter 12) | Building Blocks of Progress

# data[].attributes.body
1. We can comunicate more and try to understand each other instead of don't let them say anything.

2. Yes, there is a limit of how much things are protected by the 1st amendment forexample fighting words are not protected.

3. No if we don't say it out.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What research methods and strategies were most effective for obtaining relevant and reliable information?

2. Did your understanding of your topic evolve as you delved deeper into the research?

3. Were there any surprises or unexpected insights you encountered during your exploration of the topic?

4. How did you apply critical thinking skills in analyzing information and forming your own perspective on your topic?

5. Did you develop any new skills or deepen your understanding of research methods?

6. How has this research experience influenced your perspective on the importance of your topic in society?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Most of the useful websites come from the information packet however I did find other websites related to the topic.

2. Yes, I think I learned a lot about free speech that I didn't know and it made me realize how important freedom of speech is.

3. It was surprising for me the fact that some scientist's theories were silenced because they don't have freedom of speech.

4. I try to stick to the topics that my group made in the Padlet and sort them correctly. I also made questions that I then found answers which made me learn a lot.

5. I learned how to use questions to further research, as well as research my group's questions and do further research that led to me learning a lot of new things.

6. I was originally already supporting freedom of speech, however, by researching more about it, I realized that Thailand needed freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Why some people don't allow freedom of speech? Everyone must have the right to say what they want.

2. When will Thailand allow freedom of speech?

3. Why does it need to be only the Supreme Court that supports freedom of speech best?

4. Can we at least say stuff that we want but have limits?

# data[].attributes.body
1. It depends on the individual opinion however most likely it is because the government wants to preserve the existing power structure or gain political control.

3. Because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the United State.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The most useful website for history is history.com, I do find some more websites on that website to get more details.

2. Yes, I learn so much new stuff about free speech. It is so fun and interesting to read over the history of free speech. I know where it came from and some examples of it.

3. It surprised me when I realized how much people struggle with free speech. We all should have the right to say anything we want. I never knew that free speech was such a big thing.

4. When I read the article, I tried to understand what was going on, repeat it with my own words, and write it down.

5. I learn a lot about how to research and compare the information from each website.

6. I always wanted to know about freedom of speech but never researched it seriously. I do support freedom of speech but not deeply, now I do support freedom of speech so much more. We all need to have to right to say what we want.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Why would the First Amendment protect hate speech?

2. What can we do if we are living in a country that doesn't allow free speech?

3. Which are some countries that don't allow freedom of speech?

4. Should freedom of speech be protected no matter what?

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is protected because the 1st amendment believes in freedom of expression, determining whether this speech is hate speech or not can also be hard because of individual and cultural differences. Although it is protected by the 1st amendment it does not protect us against public criticism.

2. First, we got to know the law that relates to your country about free speech. You can also join peaceful advocacy and educate others about freedom of speech.

3. Thailand is one of the countries that don't allow freedom of speech.

4. Yes, freedom of speech should be protected.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The most effective website that I use is quillette.com, which is very useful and has a lot of information.

2. Yes, I understand about this topic. At first, I thought this topic was not very interesting but after I read the article it's quite interesting.

3. I was surprised that so many people are interested in freedom of speech.

4. While I am reading the information or an article I try to learn a new word and understand the information.

5. I learned which websites are trustworthy and which aren't compared to other websites.

6. I have wanted to learn about this topic for a long time already but I don't have time to research this so I have a lot of fun while researching this topic.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Most of the websites that I used are from the sources that the teacher gave us, but I still found a few of them on my own.

2. Yes, I know more about the history of freedom of speech and also how it evolved and protected during the research.

3. during the research, I also learned more about Anti-SLAPP laws which I didn't expect.

4. All of my group members worked hard and sorted the resources clearly in Padlet, which made it easier to. analyze the information.

5. Yes, I learned that researching is very important when you first start a topic that you are not familiar with.

6. I learned that free speech is very important and that it protects most of our freedom, talking is a necessary part of our life, if one day there's no freedom of speech, we have to be afraid of what we can talk about and what we shouldn't be talking about, it's going to cause a lot of pressure to the whole society.