United States free speech exceptions

exceptions to First Amendment protectionsexception from protectionfree speech exceptionsThe following types of speech are not protected constitutionally
Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment.wikipedia
41 Related Articles

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

First AmendmentFirstU.S. Const. amend. I
Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment.
Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections.

Freedom of speech in the United States

freedom of speechfree speechtime, place, and manner
According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech.

Government speech

compelled speechgovernmental speechsubsidizer or speaker
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.

Mail

postal servicepostal servicespostal
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.

Federal Communications Commission

FCCU.S. Federal Communications CommissionFederal Communications Commission (FCC)
Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.

Imminent lawless action

imminent lawless conductincitementinciting the riot
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Brandenberg v. Ohiowas ruled unconstitutional
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.

Ku Klux Klan

KKKKlansmanKlansmen
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.

Schenck v. United States

Charles SchenckCharles T. Schenck v. United Statesconviction
This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech.

Clear and present danger

clear and immediate dangerclear and present danger testclear and present effect
This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

Gertz
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".

Defamation

libelslanderdefamatory
Libel and slander laws fall under this category.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

New York Times v. SullivanNew York Times Co. v Sullivanactual malice
The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.

Miller test

Miller'' testpruriencetest
Under the Miller test (which takes its name from Miller v. California), speech is unprotected if (1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

Miller v. California

Miller
Under the Miller test (which takes its name from Miller v. California), speech is unprotected if (1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

Smith v. California

In Smith v. California (1959), the Supreme Court thus gave a defense of "reasonable ignorance" to an obscenity charge.

Age of majority

majoritylegal majorityadult
The rule provides that speech is unprotected if it (1) "visually depicts" children below the age of majority and (2) "performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals".

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshirein 1942
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".

United States Code

U.S.C.U.S. Codefederal statute
Under Title 18 Section 871 of the United States Code it is illegal to knowingly and willfully make "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States."

True threat

true threats
This law is distinct from other forms of true threats because the threatener does not need to have the actual capability to carry out the threat, meaning prisoners can also be charged.

Copyright

copyright lawcopyrightscopyrighted
Things like copyrights or trademarks fall under this exception.

Trademark

trademarkstrade marktrademarked
Things like copyrights or trademarks fall under this exception.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises

a caseHarper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., v. Nation Enterprises
The Supreme Court first held this in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985), where copyright law was upheld against a First Amendment free speech challenge.

False advertising

deceptive advertisingmisleading advertisingdeceptive marketing
For example, false advertising can be punished and misleading advertising may be prohibited.

Pickering v. Board of Education

Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist.PickeringPickering test
The exception with regards to balancing the harm of a statement and the value of the statement (the Pickering test) is done by considering the degree to which the speech either interferes with close working relationships, disrupts the office, or even has the potential to do either.