Discussion » Questions » Politics » Am I correct in assuming that the First Amendment protects what you say and not the consequences of what you say?

Am I correct in assuming that the First Amendment protects what you say and not the consequences of what you say?

Posted - May 30, 2018

Responses


  • 46117
    No.  You are not.

    You are allowed to speak freely if you do not intentionally speak to lie, slander, or ruin someone's right to peace and harmony in their private life.

    You are not allowed to accuse people of wrongdoings with no proof of such.

    You are not allowed to speak about a people or individual in a racist manner. 

    Don't do it.

    It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

    Oh yes, it also includes LIBEL. 

    Unless, of course, you don't run the country.

    Definition. Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at May 30, 2018 3:09 PM MDT
      May 30, 2018 9:51 AM MDT
    3

  • Well, technically you are allowed to speak about people in a racist manner; it's not illegal to do so. It may be against your employer's rules and you can be fired for it. You can also be shamed for it or criticized for it. The First Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences, but it does protect your right to say such things. You're correct about libel and slander, which you can be sued for, albeit it is difficult to win a libel or slander suit. 
      May 30, 2018 10:03 AM MDT
    2

  • 17596
    Not really, unless you are well known.
      May 30, 2018 8:00 PM MDT
    0

  • For the most part, yes. There are certain things you say that are not protected, such as threats or libel, but otherwise it protects your legal right to say most things. That does not mean that it protects you from social consequences. I might have a right to be racist, but if I said something racist at work, I could be fired. That is not a First Amendment issue, that is an issue between me and my employer. People often toss out "First Amendment" as a defense without understanding it. Everyone is preoccupied with rights to the exclusion of responsibilities. 
      May 30, 2018 10:05 AM MDT
    3

  • 22891
    you might be
      May 30, 2018 2:32 PM MDT
    1

  • 34283
    The 1st is about laws made by the government....not your private employer, family, etc. 
    Everything that we say/do or do not say/do has consequences as a result.
      May 30, 2018 2:42 PM MDT
    3

  • 17596
    No.  the First Amendment protects your right to speak against your government without retribution.  Most speech is protected under the First other than hate speech (which is not defined as saying you hate something or someone).  The government can control protected speech as to time, place, and manner (ex. permit to have a protest).  
      May 30, 2018 8:03 PM MDT
    1

  • 34283
    Ok....you are the lawyer. I will take your word for it.
      May 30, 2018 8:17 PM MDT
    1

  • 16792
    As Roseanne just found out, the hard way.

    A KKK Grand Wizard and a hippopotamus had a baby. 
    = rb
      May 30, 2018 5:12 PM MDT
    1

  • 17596
    Wow.  Some of these answers are really out there.  
      May 30, 2018 8:08 PM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    No

    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech.

    But that doesn't mean that people won't be offended by your words or that the First Amendment protects the right to say anything, anywhere or anytime without repercussions.  (Specific to part two of your question)

    The Supreme Court and lower courts have identified nine types of speech that are not protected under the First Amendment:

    Obscenity
    Fighting words
    Defamation (including libel and slander)
    Child pornography
    Perjury
    Blackmail
    Incitement to imminent lawless action
    True threats
    Solicitations to commit crimes

    These particular types of speech are unprotected because they either actively break the law, incite others to break the law, or create a potentially violent or unsafe situation.

    A free and unobstructed press provides a powerful check on government corruption. Journalists — including bloggers and other online writers — enjoy strong protections under the First Amendment, but does that mean you can publish absolutely anything?

    Not if it is false. This is where defamation laws come into play. Defamation is speech that is both false and damaging to someone's reputation. Written defamation is called libel, and spoken defamation is called slander. Over the years, the courts have established some tests for defamation. The statement must be published, false and "injurious" (proven damage to reputation). If the defamed person is a public figure (like a politician or celebrity), the libelous statement must be made with "actual malice," meaning it wasn't an "honest mistake," but a conscious decision to publish a lie.

    Defamation is a civil offense, not a crime. Victims of libel or slander sue the offending publication for damages. Not surprisingly, the National Enquirer and other tabloids are frequent targets of libel suits.

    https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-rights-first-amendment-does-not-grant.htm

      May 30, 2018 8:22 PM MDT
    0