# data[].attributes.headline
CBS Sunday Morning - The price of free speech - and censorship

# data[].attributes.subject
CBS Sunday Morning - The price of free speech - and censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The price of free speech - and censorship

# data[].attributes.headline
China Cracks down on Teen Fan Groups - Controlling Kids' Thinking

# data[].attributes.subject
China Cracks down on Teen Fan Groups - Controlling Kids' Thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Chinese actor and singer Xiao Zhan, whose online fan community prompted greater government attention of such groups, performs at a concert of his TV series "The Untamed" in Nanjing, China, on Nov. 2, 2019. (Oriental Image via Reuters Connect)

Echoing Mao Zedong before him, Xi Jinping regularly stresses the Party's domination of all aspects of life. "East, west, south, north and center, Party, government, military, society and education-the Party rules all," as he has said. The latest target of this drive to domination is " fandom culture," or fanquan wenhua, which refers to online youth communities that coalesce around shared obsessions with celebrity idols. According to the Cyberspace Administration of China, " toxic idol worship" threatens to poison the minds of future generations. Last month, a newspaper published by the Chinese Communist Party's Central Propaganda Department warned that internet addiction among teenagers "results in health risks that cannot be ignored."

This effort to control fandom culture comes against the backdrop of a crackdown on youth entertainment in China, including harsh restrictions on online gaming. But all this talk of rescuing Chinese youth from their own appetites is in fact a smokescreen for a far more serious purpose. Closer scrutiny of China's recent internet crackdown suggests these moves are part of a broader effort to reassert the Party's control over the internet as a key battleground for political and ideological security. The struggle, which touches on the future of the regime, is for the hearts and minds of China's Generation Z. For policymakers considering how to respond to China's crackdown on online freedoms, it is vital to understand the full scope of its efforts to consolidate power, which go far beyond just the tech industry to include online culture.

In the eyes of the Party, the country's hitherto vibrant internet and entertainment sector is a thing to be tamed, and the official backlash facing fandom culture in recent weeks is one of the clearest examples of how even apparently benign aspects of the internet can run afoul of a leadership obsessed with control. Just as the Xi regime has sought to bring the country's technology companies to heel, it also seeks to control online culture more deeply, and this does not bode well for the long-term development and vibrancy of China's internet sector.

For many young people in China, particularly those born after the 1990s, fandom culture-which can be traced back to the idol worship of the 1980s and 1990s-has offered a rare avenue for identity formation and community building in a society where associations of all kinds are subject to strict government control. As networked and often highly organized communities of fans rallying around their beloved idols, "fandoms" have enabled close parasocial interactions in which fans feel a kind of intimacy with the object of their shared interest, as well as a sense of active participation that can be empowering and identity forming.

Examples of fandom culture include the hit show "Idol Producer," which launched in January 2018 on the online video platform iQiyi and empowered fans to select and promote their favored contestants from among 100 aspiring performers. The ultimate goal of the program was to select nine performers to form a brand-new male idol group. As fans organized to promote their favored idols through social media platforms, their interactions were fueled by Gen Z-focused services like live-streaming and live commerce.

Fandoms have become big business in China. A report published by iResearch Consulting Group put the market value of the fan economy in China at close to $620 billion in 2019 and estimated that the fan economy would grow a further 50 percent by 2023.

It would be easy to dismiss fandoms as shallow and celebrity-obsessed, but the highly organized online communities forming around China's fandoms have already demonstrated their potential for both social activism and political organization. Perhaps the most prominent example of online fandom communities' potential for political expression came in 2016, when the so-called " Diba expedition" saw thousands of highly organized cyber-nationalists, mostly " fan girls," mob the Facebook account of Taiwan's newly elected leader, Tsai Ing-wen.

A definition of the term "fandom girls" shared online in China. The text next to the image of young women wearing red scarves and brandishing a keyboard reads: "[The term] does not refer specifically to a group of fans of a particular celebrity. Unlike the traditional fandom culture, they gather spontaneously and use their own fandom culture to discuss and mock Western media on overseas social media." Source: Matters.

Fandoms and their capacity for collective action were also one of the largely untold stories of China's fight against the COVID-19 epidemic in its early stage. In January 2020, as it became clear that an epidemic had emerged in Wuhan and surrounding areas, the government response was far too slow in many key areas, including the provision of protective equipment. By contrast, the networks already formed within fandom culture-the same that allowed mobilization in support of chosen idols-enabled the rapid marshalling of resources. On Jan. 21, 2020, one day after China confirmed human transmission of COVID-19, the fan network of Zhu Yilong, a young actor originally from the city of Wuhan, mobilized funds to purchase more than 200,000 protective masks. These and other supplies were delivered to Wuhan within 24 hours, offering much-needed support for medical personnel and others on the front lines. The aid offered by the Zhu Yilong network is just one of many examples of how online groups provided a crucial means of support amid a rapidly unfolding crisis.

Perhaps more worrying for the CCP has been their potential for mobilization on a global scale. Within 10 days of China's formal acknowledgement of the coronavirus outbreak in January 2020, a group of 27 fandoms from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan known as the " 666 Alliance," had sourced nearly half a million-yuan worth of medical supplies for use in Wuhan. As one Chinese scholar wrote of fandoms in 2020: "They are a huge population, are well-organized, and have a clear division of labor, giving them an explosive power many would find astonishing."

Screenshot of coverage by Shanghai's Jiemian News of the "666 Alliance" of fandom groups and its work sourcing supplies for the fight against Covid-19.

The Chinese leadership understands the immense impact youth movements have had in the country's political past-from the May Fourth Movement at the start of the 20 th century, to the chaos wrought by Mao's Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, to the large-scale pro-democracy demonstrations of 1989. It may seem a stretch to compare such historical upheavals to the myriad iterations of online youth culture in China today. But it is important to recall that the most enduring lesson Party leaders took away in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Massacre was the imperative of mastering the social zeitgeist, ensuring especially that the thoughts and ideas driving China's youth can be directed through effective controls on culture and the media. As China's reform-minded premier, Zhao Ziyang, was shoved aside in the wake of the massacre, and as Jiang Zemin assumed leadership of the Party, the project of ensuring the control of news and ideology to preserve regime stability was given a new catchphrase: "guidance of public opinion." The phrase came directly from language in the Party's assessment, published in the journal China Comment, of Premier Zhao's failings of that spring.

Meeting with propaganda leaders in May 1989, as pro-democracy demonstrations continued to grab international attention, Zhao had urged the officials to open things up a bit. "Make the news a bit more open. There's no big danger in that," he said. "By facing the wishes of the people, by facing the tide of global progress, we can only make things better." The consensus from the start of the Jiang era was that Zhao's tolerant approach had "guided matters in the direction of chaos," hence the phrase that came to dominate the project of media and internet control for decades to come.

The CAC's Aug. 27 notice on fandom communities-"Notice on the Further Strengthening of the Management of 'Fandom Chaos'"-describes the political objectives driving this clean-up of "fandom chaos." The notice says that "all regions must further improve their political stance," or zhengzhi zhanwei, which is a term that came to prominence in 2018 to signal allegiance to Xi Jinping and the CCP. The term is a distillation of what is known as the " Four Consciousnesses," which is fundamentally about Xi Jinping's " core " status. Crucially, the notice urges government authorities in all regions of the country to govern "fandom chaos" in order to "preserve online political security and ideological security and create a clear online space." This spells out far more clearly-by the standards of China's often obscure political rhetoric, anyway-the urgency of controlling fandom culture in order to maintain the stability of the regime. There is also explicit language about the need for platforms that host fandom activity to take on a "guiding responsibility," a subtle yet unmistakable reference to the aforementioned media control phrase and the events of 1989.

China's leadership has been pushing insistently for better "guidance" of fandom culture since at least the second half of 2020. Fandoms came under much greater official scrutiny from February to July of 2020 following an online controversy centering on Xiao Zhan, an actor and internet idol. When AO3, a fan fiction site outside China played host to an overtly homoerotic work of fan fiction about Xiao and a former co-star, some of Xiao's millions of fans were enraged. They retaliated by reporting the fan site to government authorities, who answered with a wholesale blocking of the site from inside China. This prompted bitter reprisals against Xiao Zhan fans, including name-calling and doxing, from other fandoms dedicated to AO3. Xiao quickly became a toxic figure for major brands like Cartier and Estée Lauder, who backed out of endorsement deals.

The online storm around Xiao Zhan became known as the "227 Incident" (referring to the date it began, Feb. 27) and brought a wave of official criticism in the Party-state media. One official newspaper wrote via its news app in early May 2020 that fandom culture is a "highly-organized" threat to ideological security. The role of fandoms in "self-identity construction" had caused them to "constantly intrude upon or subsume other ideologies to form a fierce and aggressive and highly-organized machine." Fandoms' "potential social influence in broader arenas" cannot "be underestimated," the paper warned. Following an initial apology in March, Xiao Zhan again issued a mea culpa in July 2020, using the Party's own language of ideological control: "I do have a duty to guide correctly and to actively advocate [for the correct values]."

By July 2020, the stage was set for this year's curbs on fandom culture as part of a much larger crackdown on China's internet. From that point on, "fandom chaos" was a regular topic in the official media. A headline that month in Guangdong's official Nanfang Daily read: "Relevant Departments Focus on 'Fandom' Chaos: Media and Celebrities Must Properly Carry Out Guidance of Public Opinion."

Attacks on fandom culture and online entertainment in China's state media this year have continued to dwell on the impact on the health and well-being of young people and on the damage supposedly done to the country's "online ecology." But accepting this official rationalization for the crackdown on fandoms requires that we turn a blind eye to the most defining trend in Chinese domestic politics today-namely, the Party's push to build a culture of loyalty, and even infatuation, around the person of Xi Jinping. Celebrity worship may be on the way out in China. But strongman worship is the order of the day. By cracking down on fandoms, the Party seeks to ensure that the vigor of celebrity worship is re-directed toward Xi Jinping himself, as the embodiment of Chinese ethics and values.

Despite all the chatter in the official state media about the " chaos" of fandoms, the push to make China's internet giants to give back, the need to safeguard data privacy and official morality, and so on, the most fundamental driver behind wave after wave of new internet restrictions this year has been far more basic: the need for the Chinese Communist Party and its charismatic leader to shore up the foundation for political and ideological stability. On Aug. 24, just three days before the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee issued its new regulations on fandom culture, China's Ministry of Education announced that the study of Xi Jinping's personal governing concept will be incorporated into the official education curriculum, helping China's youth "build faith in Marxism." Primary school children in China-now restricted to their two hours of online gaming per week-will now also be obligated to study not just the governing concepts of Xi Jinping, but to study and internalize the stories of Xi's life and deeds. The country's leaders may decry a commercial internet culture in which everyone is " striving for eyeballs." But the fundamental point here is that the Party too is striving for eyeballs. And its future, it knows, will depend on China's obsessed youth.
David Bandurski is the co-director of the China Media Project, a research program in partnership with the Journalism & Media Studies Center at the University of Hong Kong. Facebook provides financial support to the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit organization devoted to rigorous, independent, in-depth public policy research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why China is cracking down on its online fandom obsessed youth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Echoing Mao Zedong before him, Xi Jinping regularly stresses the Party's domination of all aspects of life. "East, west, south, north and center, Party, government, military, society and education-the Party rules all," as he has said.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should School Officials Monitor and Have a Say in Students' Social Media 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should School Officials Monitor and Have a Say in Students' Social Media 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of "B.L.," who was punished by Pennsylvania's Mahanoy Area School District in 2017 for posting on Snapchat after learning that she had not made the school's varsity cheerleading team: "F- school f- softball f- cheer f- everything." The message reached her school's cheerleading coaches, who removed her from the JV squad for the season. B.L. sued the district and won - but then they appealed.

While the Biden administration has backed the school district, staunch defenders of the First Amendment's speech protections worry that a court win for the district could have a chilling effect across student speech. But even from that point of agreement, there's dispute as to whether the courts should be counted on to defend student speech.

The Inquirer turned to two education professors at the University of Pennsylvania to debate: Can the courts be a reliable ally in protecting student speech?
By Jonathan Zimmerman
If officials in northeast Pennsylvania get their way, students across America will risk penalties for anything they post online. And that's bad news for all of us.

The student at the center of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. got in trouble because a friend took a screenshot of her Snapchat post (which used the f-word four times) and showed it to the friend's mother, a cheerleading coach. The school suspended B.L. from cheerleading for a year, claiming the punishment was necessary to "avoid chaos" and uphold a "teamlike environment."
" READ MORE: Does Twitter's ban violate Trump's free-speech rights? Likely not, but it raises questions about social media platforms, Philly experts say.
B.L. sued the school district and won a sweeping victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, which ruled that officials could not punish students for speech occurring outside of school. The Mahanoy district appealed the case to the Supreme Court, backed by the American Federation of Teachers, the National School Boards Association, and several other large educational organizations.

If B.L. prevails, they worry, they won't be able to penalize students for harassing or threatening posts. Nor will they have the right to regulate student behavior in remote classes, which have become ubiquitous during the pandemic.

But we already have numerous state laws prohibiting cyberbullying and other kinds of online harassment. And if B.L. had made her expletive-laced remark during a remote class, of course the school should have been allowed to discipline her.

She actually typed the remark at a store on a Saturday, when her school wasn't even in session. And she sent it to her 250-odd Snapchat friends, not to anyone else. If the Supreme Court rules against B.L., schools will be able to regulate everything students say. It won't matter where they are or who hears them.
" READ MORE: Let's not make Allentown teacher who attended Capitol rally a 'martyr' for free speech | Opinion
That should send shivers down the spine of every American, no matter their politics. This isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, or at least it shouldn't be. It's a question of freedom, which affects all of us.

In 2018, for example, school officials in Lacey, N.J., suspended two high school students for posting photos of their legally owned guns at a shooting range. "If there's ever a zombie apocalypse, you know where to go," one of their captions read.

Calling all National Rifle Association members! If the students in Lacey had posted their intent to harm someone, of course it would have been fully appropriate to discipline them. But their only "threat" was to zombies, which they obviously made as a joke.

The dead-serious threat here is to the rights of our students, and also of their parents. If B.L.'s suspension is upheld, everything that your kid says outside of school - even under your own roof - will be subject to school regulation and penalty. It won't matter if you agree or not.

"Freedom is simply too important a principle to be left to the whim of the principal."

Jonathan Zimmerman

"Where did we give up that right to be a parent?" a citizen in Lacey asked a packed 2018 school board meeting after the two students were suspended. The answer is simple: We didn't and we shouldn't, any more than we should allow schools to muzzle our children.

We can't teach young people to be democratic citizens if we don't let them speak their minds, about guns and everything else. And if schools don't have policies to protect that right, the courts need to step in. Freedom is simply too important a principle to be left to the whim of the principal.
Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the coauthor, with cartoonist Signe Wilkinson, of "Free Speech and Why You Should Give a Damn," which will be released on Thursday at a virtual event sponsored by the Free Library of Philadelphia. By Sigal Ben-Porath
Courts at all levels routinely refuse to see young people as citizens and often neglect to protect children's speech. To sustain American democracy, our best course of action is to rely less on the courts and to start expecting schools, and supporting teachers, to do the crucial work of preparing young people for democracy.

Many students recognize the necessity of being prepared for their civic roles and have sued when schools failed to address their need not just to learn about American democracy, but to practice the skills required to participate. The courts have not supported their efforts. The Supreme Court, for example, ruled in 2007 that a school could punish a student for a banner that read " BONG HITS 4 JESUS." At the state level, a Michigan court case in which students demanded literacy as a protected civic right went nowhere, as did a similar Rhode Island case claiming a constitutional right to civics education.
" READ MORE: From snowflake students to outspoken professors: Why protecting campus speech matters | Opinion
No one is born with the skills and knowledge to be an engaged democratic citizen. As courts constrict speech rights and treat young people as too young to have their own views, schools risk taking up this vision. Students are regularly treated by judges, policymakers, and administrators as vessels to advance one agenda or another, or as mere future workers and taxpayers, charged simply with contributing to the economy. This is a fine goal, but a society is more than an economy. American democracy is broader than the sum of its businesses and employees.

Students need to learn how to become effective members of this complex, and arguably eroding, democratic society. They need to learn to speak their minds and connect across divides. And they need to be allowed to make mistakes and learn the consequences of their words. For this vision to be achieved, schools and courts must treat students as people who are worthy of their constitutional rights, and deserving of the opportunity to practice them.

Schools have a key role in protecting student speech and in supporting students as they develop their voices. Democracy is the only form of government in which citizens are free to make up their own minds. The ability to do so does not turn on, like a light switch, at age 18. Schools can enable the development of democratic habits by ensuring that students can think and speak freely, understand and consider the impact of their words, and engage in conversation with diverse groups.

"Schools can enable the development of democratic habits by ensuring that students can think and speak freely, understand and consider the impact of their words, and engage in conversation with diverse groups."

Sigal Ben-Porath

A common concern raised about "kids these days" is that they do not support freedom of speech as much as they should, or as much as past generations. Some surveys have indeed found today's young people more skeptical of free speech and expressing a preference for more limitations, especially when words and statements harm members of marginalized social groups. These beliefs highlight the value of publicly discussing the boundaries of speech, and the protection the First Amendment provides to marginalized groups, in trusted school communities. Unfortunately, schools too often do the opposite, like censoring student newspapers. The courts, in turn, allow them to limit "lewd" and "improper" speech.

While the courts might help determine when it is appropriate to punish a student for hurtful, racist, or otherwise inappropriate speech, the work goes well beyond sketching those boundaries. Schools should bear the primary responsibility for that work - not punish students for constitutionally protected speech and cut off essential dialogue.
Sigal Ben-Porath is a professor of education at the University of Pennsylvania. Currently a fellow at Harvard's Center for Ethics, she joined the "Brief of Law and Education Professors as Amici Curiae" supporting B.L. submitted to the Supreme Court in this case. Do officials who block people on social media violate the First Amendment? Should Philly raise taxes to fix long-term budget woes? When do photos of suffering enlighten, and when do they exploit?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should a Pennsylvania teen's Snapchat rant have made it to the Supreme Court? | Pro/Con

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of "B.L.," who was punished by Pennsylvania's Mahanoy Area School District in 2017 for posting on Snapchat after learning that she had not made the school's varsity cheerleading team: "F- school f- softball f- cheer f- everything."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quemar fotos de los monarcas es un acto de crítica política y, por tanto, queda englobado dentro del derecho a la libertad de expresión. Así lo ha dictaminado el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad este martes, que ha condenado a España por vulnerar la libertad de expresión de dos jóvenes catalanes que en 2007 quemaron fotos de los monarcas y fueron condenados a pagar 2.700 euros de multa cada uno de ellos por un delito de injurias contra la Corona.

El caso arrancó en el año 2007 durante una visita de los monarcas Juan Carlos I y Sofía a la ciudad de Girona. Stern Taulats y Roura Capellera, los dos recurrentes, participaron en una protesta independentista y quemaron imágenes de los reyes. Los jóvenes fueron condenados por ello a quince meses de prisión, aunque después la sanción quedaría reducida al pago de 2.700 euros de multa. El Tribunal Constitucional les negó el amparo y explicó que Taulats y Capellera habían cometido un delito de odio al incitar a la violencia contra los monarcas.

Quemar fotos de los monarcas es un acto de crítica política y, por tanto, queda englobado dentro del derecho a la libertad de expresión

Sin embargo, la Justicia europea ha sido tajante y por unanimidad ha establecido que la quema de imágenes de los monarcas eméritos formaba parte de una "crítica política a la institución de la monarquía" y "al Reino de España", por lo que es completamente legal y entra dentro del derecho a la libertad de expresión de todos los ciudadanos. Por todo ello, el TEDH condena a España a devolver los 2.700 euros de multa que impuso a los recurrentes y a indemnizarlos, además, con otros 9.000 euros.

El texto también recuerda a España que la libertad de expresión no solo es para la información o las ideas inofensivas sino también, y especialmente, para aquellas que puedan generar escándalo, "conmoción" o "preocupación".

Asimismo, la sentencia de Estrasburgo ha sido tajante para señalar que de ningún modo estos actos pueden ser encuadrados en un nuevo tipo de delito de odio, tal y como estimó el Tribunal Constitucional, y asegura que entenderlo de este modo "sería perjudicial para el pluralismo, la tolerancia y el espíritu que permite que haya una sociedad democrática".

En este sentido, el TEDH recuerda a España que el delito de odio se creó para proteger a minorías discriminadas por su raza o su condición sexual y no a la Corona. La explicación de la Justicia europea, por tanto, deja en entredicho la polémica interpretación que el Constitucional realizó en 2015 cuando estimó que quemar fotos del rey suponía una incitación a la violencia contra la Corona.

El TEDH pone en el punto de mira las injurias a la Corona

Esta sentencia no es la primera contra España por vulnerar la libertad de expresión de un ciudadano condenado por injurias a la Corona. El TEDH ya dio la razón a Arnaldo Otegi frente a España cuando el primero fue condenado a un año de prisión tras afirmar que el rey Juan Carlos I era el jefe de los torturadores.

En aquella ocasión, la Justicia europea se lo dejó bien claro a España: proteger de manera especial al jefe del Estado, es decir al rey, en materia de injurias y calumnias no se ajusta al espíritu del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos que España suscribió.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Estrasburgo condena a España por vulnerar la libertad de expresión de dos jóvenes que quemaron fotos de los reyes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos estima que la quema de fotografías de los monarcas fue un acto de legítima &quot;crítica política&quot;. Condena a España a reintegrar los 2.700 euros de multa que impuso y a indemnizarlos con 9.000 euros.

# data[].attributes.body
Art. 10

# data[].attributes.body
Art. 20 Constitución española

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ARTÍCULO 20 DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN ESPAÑOLA

Artículo 20 de la Constitución Española:

1. Se reconocen y protegen los derechos:

2. El ejercicio de estos derechos no puede restringirse mediante ningún tipo de censura previa.

3. La ley regulará la organización y el control parlamentario de los medios de comunicación social dependientes del Estado o de cualquier ente público y garantizará el acceso a dichos medios de los grupos sociales y políticos significativos, respetando el pluralismo de la sociedad y de las diversas lenguas de España.

4. Estas libertades tienen su límite en el respeto a los derechos reconocidos en este Título, en los preceptos de las leyes que lo desarrollen y, especialmente, en el derecho al honor, a la intimidad, a la propia imagen y a la protección de la juventud y de la infancia.

5. Sólo podrá acordarse el secuestro de publicaciones, grabaciones y otros medios de información en virtud de resolución judicial.

TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL:

TABLA DE CONCORDANCIAS

con las Principales Declaraciones, Pactos y Tratados internacionales de Derechos Humanos y con otras normas

MEDIDAS DE PROTECCIÓN

establecidas para los derechos fundamentales recogidos en el artículo 20 de la Constitución Española

1. Cualquier ciudadano puede recabar la tutela de los derechos recogidos en el artículo 20 de la Constitución española, ante los Tribunales ordinarios, por un procedimiento basado en los principios de preferencia y sumariedad (art. 53.2 de la Constitución Española).

2. Cualquier ciudadano puede acudir, tras el cumplimiento de los requisitos y tramitaciones establecidas para ello, al y recurso de amparo ante el Tribunal Constitucional para la protección de los derechos recogidos en el artículo 20 de la Constitución (art. 53.2 art. 161.1.b de la Constitución Española).

3. Cabe el recurso de inconstitucionalidad contra las Leyes y disposiciones normativas con fuerza de ley que vulneren los derechos recogidos en el artículo 20 de la Constitución Española (artículo 53.1 y artículo 161.1.a) de la Constitución Española).

4. El Defensor del Pueblo se encuentra designado, en virtud de lo establecido en el artículo 54 de la Constitución Española, como alto comisionado de las Cortes Generales para la defensa de los derechos recogidos en el Título I de la Constitución, encuadrándose el artículo 20 de la Constitución dentro del mencionado Título I.

5. Sólo por ley, que en todo caso deberá respetar el contenido esencial de los derechos recogidos en el artículo 20 de la Constitución Española, podrá regularse el ejercicio de estos derechos (art. 53.1 de la Constitución Española).

6. El desarrollo normativo de los derechos recogidos en el artículo 20 de la Constitución Española, debe realizarse mediante Ley Orgánica (art. 81.1 de la Constitución Española) , que requiere un especial consenso parlamentario al exigirse, para su aprobación, modificación o derogación, mayoría absoluta del Congreso (art. 81.2 de la Constitución Española) .

7. Se prohíbe la adopción de Decretos-Leyes que afecten a los derechos recogidos en el artículo 20 de la Constitución Española (al igual que a cualquier otro derecho, deber o libertad recogida en el Título I de la Constitución), aun en los supuestos de extraordinaria y urgente necesidad en los que, para la regulación de otras materias, sí resulta procedente recurrir a los Decretos-leyes(art. 86.1 de la Constitución Española) .

8. El artículo 20 de la Constitución Española (al igual que ocurre con los demás preceptos del Capítulo II del Título I de la Constitución) vincula directamente a las Administraciones Públicas (sin necesidad de mediación del legislador ordinario ni de desarrollo normativo alguno), tal y como se desprende de la STC 80/1982.

9. Cualquier modificación de la regulación que establece la Constitución Española para los derechos recogidos en su artículo 20 debería canalizarse a través de la vía de reforma constitucional gravada que establece el artículo 168 de la Constitución Española y que requiere de un gran consenso social ya que exige la aprobación de la correspondiente propuesta por mayoría de dos tercios de cada cámara parlamentaria (Congreso de los Diputados y Senado), la posterior disolución de las Cortes Generales, la posterior celebración de Elecciones generales, la nueva ratificación de la propuesta de modificación por mayoría de dos tercios de las cámaras parlamentarias formadas tras las correspondientes elecciones y, por último, la ratificación de la propuesta de modificación mediante referéndum.

Protección judicial

Protección normativa

Art.

Derecho - libertad

Directa aplicabilidad sin necesidad de desarrollo normativo

Desarrollo Normativo

Regulación mediante Decreto- Ley

Modificación de la Regulación Constitucional

Título I - Capítulo II - Sección 1ª De los derechos fundamentales y las libertades públicas

Directa aplicabilidad sin necesidad de desarrollo normativo

Desarrollo Normativo

Regulación mediante Decreto- Ley

Modificación de la Regulación Constitucional

- Derecho al honor, a la intimidad personal y familiar y a la propia imagen.

- Inviolabilidad del domicilio.

- Secreto de las comunicaciones.

Sí

- Derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva.

- Derecho a la defensa.

- Derechos procesales

Sí

Título I - Capítulo II - Sección 2ª De los derechos y deberes de los ciudadanos

Directa aplicabilidad sin necesidad de desarrollo normativo

Desarrollo Normativo

Regulación mediante Decreto- Ley

Modificación de la Regulación Constitucional

- Derecho al trabajo,

- Derecho a la libre elección de profesión u oficio.

- Derecho a la promoción a través del trabajo.

- Derecho a una remuneración suficiente para satisfacer sus necesidades y las de su familia.

-

-

Título I - Capítulo III De los principios rectores de la política social y económica

Directa aplicabilidad sin necesidad de desarrollo normativo

Desarrollo Normativo

Regulación mediante Decreto- Ley

Modificación de la Regulación Constitucional

- Promoción del progreso económico y social

- Promoción de la justa distribución de la renta personal y regional.

- Política orientada al pleno empleo.

- Fomento de políticas que garanticen la formación y readaptación profesionales.

- Seguridad e higiene en el trabajo.

- Garantía del descanso necesario mediante la limitación de la jornada laboral, las vacaciones periódicas retribuidas y la promoción de centros adecuados.

-

-

© Javier García Espinar

Contacto y presentación de DENUNCIAS

Si Vd. desea hacernos llegar denuncias, información o documentos de interés sobre posibles violaciones de los derechos a la libertad de expresión y comunicación y demás derechos reconocidos en el artículo 20 de la Constitución Española, puede contactarnos a través del siguiente email: denuncias @ derechoshumanos.net

Más información

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ARTÍCULO 20 de la Constitución Española - LIBERTAD DE EXPRESIÓN, DE CÁTEDRA Y DE INFORMACIÓN - Fundación Acción Pro DERECHOS HUMANOS (www.derechoshumanos.net)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ARTÍCULO 20 DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN ESPAÑOLA Artículo 20 de la Constitución Española: 1. Se reconocen y protegen los derechos: 2. El ejercicio de estos derechos no puede restringirse mediante ningún tipo de censura previa. 3.

# data[].attributes.body
https://firstamendmentwatch.org/symbolic-speech-from-liberty-tree-to-taking-a-knee-early-history-sheds-light-on-the-nfl-controversy/

# data[].attributes.headline
¿Enaltecimiento del terrorismo o enaltecimiento del mal gusto?

# data[].attributes.subject
¿Enaltecimiento del terrorismo o enaltecimiento del mal gusto?

# data[].attributes.body
La nieta de Carrero Blanco critica la sentencia de contra el tuitero que se mofó del asesinato de su abuelo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La nieta de Carrero Blanco ve “un disparate” pedir cárcel por tuits sobre su abuelo

# data[].attributes.headline
Libertad de expresión y quema de fotos de los Reyes de España

# data[].attributes.subject
Libertad de expresión y quema de fotos de los Reyes de España

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Quemar fotos de los monarcas es un acto de crítica política y, por tanto, queda englobado dentro del derecho a la libertad de expresión. Así lo ha dictaminado el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos por unanimidad este martes, que ha condenado a España por vulnerar la libertad de expresión de dos jóvenes catalanes que en 2007 quemaron fotos de los monarcas y fueron condenados a pagar 2.700 euros de multa cada uno de ellos por un delito de injurias contra la Corona.

El caso arrancó en el año 2007 durante una visita de los monarcas Juan Carlos I y Sofía a la ciudad de Girona. Stern Taulats y Roura Capellera, los dos recurrentes, participaron en una protesta independentista y quemaron imágenes de los reyes. Los jóvenes fueron condenados por ello a quince meses de prisión, aunque después la sanción quedaría reducida al pago de 2.700 euros de multa. El Tribunal Constitucional les negó el amparo y explicó que Taulats y Capellera habían cometido un delito de odio al incitar a la violencia contra los monarcas.

Quemar fotos de los monarcas es un acto de crítica política y, por tanto, queda englobado dentro del derecho a la libertad de expresión

Sin embargo, la Justicia europea ha sido tajante y por unanimidad ha establecido que la quema de imágenes de los monarcas eméritos formaba parte de una "crítica política a la institución de la monarquía" y "al Reino de España", por lo que es completamente legal y entra dentro del derecho a la libertad de expresión de todos los ciudadanos. Por todo ello, el TEDH condena a España a devolver los 2.700 euros de multa que impuso a los recurrentes y a indemnizarlos, además, con otros 9.000 euros.

El texto también recuerda a España que la libertad de expresión no solo es para la información o las ideas inofensivas sino también, y especialmente, para aquellas que puedan generar escándalo, "conmoción" o "preocupación".

Asimismo, la sentencia de Estrasburgo ha sido tajante para señalar que de ningún modo estos actos pueden ser encuadrados en un nuevo tipo de delito de odio, tal y como estimó el Tribunal Constitucional, y asegura que entenderlo de este modo "sería perjudicial para el pluralismo, la tolerancia y el espíritu que permite que haya una sociedad democrática".

En este sentido, el TEDH recuerda a España que el delito de odio se creó para proteger a minorías discriminadas por su raza o su condición sexual y no a la Corona. La explicación de la Justicia europea, por tanto, deja en entredicho la polémica interpretación que el Constitucional realizó en 2015 cuando estimó que quemar fotos del rey suponía una incitación a la violencia contra la Corona.

El TEDH pone en el punto de mira las injurias a la Corona

Esta sentencia no es la primera contra España por vulnerar la libertad de expresión de un ciudadano condenado por injurias a la Corona. El TEDH ya dio la razón a Arnaldo Otegi frente a España cuando el primero fue condenado a un año de prisión tras afirmar que el rey Juan Carlos I era el jefe de los torturadores.

En aquella ocasión, la Justicia europea se lo dejó bien claro a España: proteger de manera especial al jefe del Estado, es decir al rey, en materia de injurias y calumnias no se ajusta al espíritu del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos que España suscribió.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Estrasburgo condena a España por vulnerar la libertad de expresión de dos jóvenes que quemaron fotos de los reyes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos estima que la quema de fotografías de los monarcas fue un acto de legítima &quot;crítica política&quot;. Condena a España a reintegrar los 2.700 euros de multa que impuso y a indemnizarlos con 9.000 euros.

# data[].attributes.headline
Política y libertad de prensa: Entrevista a David Jiménez, ex-director de El Mundo y autor de "El director"

# data[].attributes.subject
Política y libertad de prensa: Entrevista a David Jiménez, ex-director de El Mundo y autor de "El director"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Entrevista completa a David Jiménez, exdirector de 'El Mundo' y autor del libro 'El director'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to It's Been a Minute with Sam Sanders podcast

subscribe to It's Been a Minute with Sam Sanders podcast

Roseanne's tweet.

NFL players kneeling.

The President blocking people on Twitter.

These stories are all about the same thing: what is free speech? Who gets to decide? And what happens when one person's speech offends another?

As Sam observes in this episode, those questions are part of a national conversation that sounds very different on the left and on the right. Nadine Strossen's new book attempts to dispel misunderstandings on both sides. It's called Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship. Strossen spoke to Sam about several recent news stories with free speech entanglements, and laid out her argument for why the best response to hate speech is more speech.

--Producer Brent Baughman

Interview Highlights
Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen On the central argument of her book
The most effective way to counter the potential negative effects of hate speech - which conveys discriminatory or hateful views on the basis of race, religion, gender, and so forth - is not through censorship, but rather through more speech. And that censorship of hate speech, no matter how well-intended, has been shown around the world and throughout history to do more harm than good in actually promoting equality, dignity, inclusivity, diversity, and societal harmony.
On hateful speech and why it's legal (most of the time)
You very frequently get public officials and even lawyers saying "hate speech is not free speech." But that is not correct! The Supreme Court never has created a category of speech that is defined by its hateful conduct, labeled it hate speech, and said that that is categorically excluded by the first amendment. Speech cannot be punished just because of its hateful con tent. But when you get beyond content and look at context, speech with a hateful message may be punished, if in a particular context it directly causes certain specific, imminent, serious harm - such as a genuine threat that means to instill a reasonable fear on the part of the person at whom the threat is targeted that he or she is going be subject to violence.
On feeling physically threatened by hateful speech
Not only threatened. You can feel emotionally disturbed. You can feel psychic trauma, which can have physiological manifestations. You can feel silenced. These are all real harms that may be suffered by people who are subject to hate speech that is not punishable.

[Because] even though we acknowledge those harms, loosening up the constraints on government to allow it to punish speech because of those less tangible, more speculative, more indirect harms - that censorial power will do more harm that good, precisely because the pendulum can swing. Not that shockingly long ago it was left-wing speakers, communists and socialist, who were kept off campuses. And civil rights activists were kept off many campuses, because their ideas were certainly hated, certainly seen as dangerous and insulting. And today, there are serious government officials who are saying that Black Lives Matter is a hate group.

On the right of colleges to refuse to allow a controversial speaker due to security costs
First of all, nobody has a right necessarily to speak on a particular campus. Campuses can set viewpoint-neutral time-, place-, and manner-rules to allocate this scarce resource of the opportunity to speak on campus. Just the way in the city of New York, you can't automatically get a parade permit - it's first-come, first-served.

And make no mistake about it, in an ACLU case - I'm proud to say, quite a few years ago - the Supreme Court held that imposing higher security costs on the speaker because the viewpoint is seen to be more controversial and therefore it's more likely to generate protests and therefore security costs - that that is just an indirect way of discriminating against the viewpoint. And you cannot do that.
On the ACLU's public image perception becoming more aligned with the left under President Trump
That's always been a misconception. People tend not to look at the underlying principle, but instead they look at whose ox is gored in the underlying case. And the reason that we're attacking specific policies of Trump is that those specific policies violate civil liberties principles. We did the same with Barack Obama, with Bill Clinton. The ACLU will issue criticism or praise on an issue-by-issue basis. Trump, no doubt, as a record number of issues on which he is earning criticism. But I don't think there is a single official about whom we cannot issue at least some praise and some criticism.
On the ACLU defending the speech rights of groups like the KKK and NAMBLA, and whether it was ever too much for her to stomach
I think the one that to me was the most vile was the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That to me - they are advocating what I see as a form of child abuse. But I do agree with the Supreme Court that advocacy of illegal conduct, including child abuse, is constitutionally protected. And people may be surprised to hear that. [The Supreme Court] drew a distinction between advocacy of illegal conduct versus intentional incitement of illegal conduct.

Because if we say, 'Oh, well, mere advocacy as opposed to intentional incitement will be enough for this speech that's particularly distasteful to me' - well once you make one exception, you can't hold the line. I know that if we loosened the standard for what was deemed to be advocacy that might be dangerous, Black Lives Matter would probably be the first thing that's endangered. So I think you have to look at the abstract principle and just tell yourself: that is what I'm defending.
On whether the NFL's new rule against player protests violates their free speech
Most people don't know and are somewhat disappointed to find out the first amendment - with its free speech guarantee - only applies to the government. Any private-sector entity, including such a powerful one as the NFL, is not constrained by constitutional free speech guarantees. That said, one can make an argument that they should voluntarily choose to protect such a quintessential patriotic value as freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech : It's Been a Minute with Sam Sanders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roseanne's tweet. NFL players kneeling. The President blocking people on Twitter. These stories are all about the same thing: what is free speech? Who gets to decide? And what happens when one person's speech makes another person feel unsafe?

# data[].attributes.body
How do Teens Use Their Right to Free Speech - Climate Change Warrior

# data[].attributes.headline
The Scientific Importance of Free Speech.  Looks at historical examples of scientists who weren't allowed to disseminate new research - and how scientists shut each other down. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Scientific Importance of Free Speech.  Looks at historical examples of scientists who weren't allowed to disseminate new research - and how scientists shut each other down. 

# 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.body
Junior Scholastic

# data[].attributes.body
Teen Voque

# data[].attributes.headline
Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?

# data[].attributes.body
pbs newshour

# data[].attributes.body
In polls, Americans regularly rank

the freedom of speech as their most

important constitutional right. According to a Rasmussen Reports survey released last year, an overwhelming 85 percent of Americans said the right to speak

freely is more important than making sure no one is offended by what others say.

# data[].attributes.body
American laws are “the most protective of free speech of any na

tion on Earth and any nation in

history,” says Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University and a free speech legal expert.

But the question, he says, is “should free speech be extended to speakers whose purpose and message is to deny free speech, people who want to overthrow the government by violence and if successful bring about the end of free speech?”

# 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
A Constitutional Rights Game from icivics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Do I Have a Right? students run their own firm of lawyers specializing in constitutional law. They decide if potential clients have a right, match them with the best lawyer, and win their case. The more clients you serve and the more cases you win, and the faster your law firm grows!

Do I Have Right? includes:

Full edition or a Bill of Rights edition

Option to play in English language or Spanish language

Option to hear or mute English voiceover, music, and/or sound effects

Planning to play Do I Have a Right? on Constitution Day? Explore our Constitution Day collection to find more resources.

Do I Have a Right? and its Extension Pack are correlated according to WIDA's methodology using the WIDA PRIME V2 Inventory. To see how these materials best meet your EL/ML students' needs, click here. (Note: PRIME stands for Protocol for Review of Instructional Materials for ELs/MLs.)

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Identify rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments

Recall the specific amendment that guarantees a particular right

Recognize complaints not involving constitutional rights

This Game is included in the following units:

Related Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Do I Have A Right? | Constitutional Law Game | iCivics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Do I Have a Right? students run their own firm of lawyers specializing in constitutional law. They decide if potential clients have a right, match them with the best lawyer, and win their case. The more clients you serve and the more cases you win, and the faster your law firm grows!

# data[].attributes.headline
Can you identity protected and unprotected speech?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can you identity protected and unprotected speech?

# data[].attributes.body
A Constitutional Decision Game from icivics.

# data[].attributes.body
subscription required

# data[].attributes.body
Should hate speech be regulated or censored? If so, how?

# data[].attributes.headline
How First Amendment rights have evolved.

# data[].attributes.subject
How First Amendment rights have evolved.

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment protects several basic liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. It is far from easy to interpret what this amendment means, and court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The definitions have changed throughout American history, and the process continues today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | How First Amendment rights have evolved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How freedoms under the First Amendment have evolved since the Constitution was written.

# data[].attributes.body
The 1st Amendment is the most important. It protects several basic rights. These rights are known as 1st Amendment Freedoms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Freedom of expression" has to do with the freedom to say something and to print something. Over the years, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of this freedom. Originally, states could restrict expression in certain circumstances. They could restrict expression if it tended to "corrupt public morals." They could restrict it if it tended to "incite to crime." And they could restrict it if it tended to "disturb the public peace." In 1937, the Supreme Court replaced that standard. The court ruled that states could restrict expression only if it presented a "clear and present danger" to the community's safety. This new standard was first suggested in an earlier case, Schenck v. United States (1919).

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) also dealt with freedom of speech. The court ruled that speech could be limited only if harm was "imminent" or "likely." The 1st Amendment also protects symbolic expression. The burning of an American flag is an example of this.

The rule of "no prior restraint" is essential to freedom of the press. It means the government cannot prevent materials from being published. This was reaffirmed in New York Times Company v. United States (1971). In this case, the U.S. government sued two newspapers to prevent their publishing the Pentagon Papers. That was a government study about the Vietnam War. The study was classified as secret. Nevertheless, the court ruled against the government.

The 1st Amendment allows criticism of public figures. One case dealing with this issue was New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964). The Supreme Court ruled that a public person cannot sue an individual or the media for libel. Libel is the publishing of material that harms a person's reputation. The only exception is if "actual malice" can be shown. Malice is reckless disregard of the truth.

The same principle applies to freedom of assembly. Governments can regulate certain aspects of a public meeting. For example, they can set the time of a meeting. They can set its place. And they can limit its size. But they cannot refuse to grant permission based on what might be said at the meeting.

An American's right to petition the government is guaranteed. That is, any citizen can formally ask the government to do something. The right to criticize the government is also guaranteed. Citizens may enjoy these rights as long as they do not harm others or threaten public safety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Amendment Freedoms | Free U.S. Government Articles for Students in Grades 4-6 | We the People Scholastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Freedom of expression" has to do with the freedom to say something and to print something. Over the years, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of this freedom. Originally, states could restrict expression in certain circumstances. They could restrict expression if it tended to "corrupt public morals."

# data[].attributes.body
The nation’s founders drafted the First Amendment to safeguard some of Americans’ most important freedoms. What rights does it guarantee you?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
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.

# data[].attributes.body
High School Tells Student To Remove Antiwar Shirt - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
In Court: When Clothes Speak to More Than Fashion - The New York Times