Freedom of speech

unconventional (adj.) - нетрадиционный;

obscenity (n.) - непристойность, ругательства, оскорбления;

defamation (n.) - поношение, клевета;

vagueness – неопределённость;

penalty (n.) - наказание;

ordi­nance (n.) - закон, указ, постановление;

to prosecute (v.) - возбудить уголовное дело, предъявить иск;

tolerance (n.) – терпимость;

disorderly conduct (n.) - мелкое хулиганство, нарушение общественного порядка.

Congress shall make no law... 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.

—First Amendment

Freedom of speech guarantees the right to communicate informa­tion and ideas. It protects all forms of communication: speeches, books, art, newspapers, television, radio, and other media. The Con­stitution protects not only the person making the communication but also the person receiving it. Therefore, the First Amendment in­cludes a right to hear, see, read, and in general be exposed to differ­ent points of view.

Freedom of speech is not absolute and was not intended to be. However, the expression of an opinion or point of view is usually pro­tected under the First Amendment, even if most people disagree with the speaker's message. Remember that the First Amendment was designed to ensure a free marketplace of ideas—even unpopular ideas. Freedom of speech protects everyone, even people who criti­cize the government or express unconventional views.

The First Amendment enables citizens to express and obtain a di­versity of opinions. It helps us make political decisions and commu­nicate these to our government. In short, the First Amendment is the heart of an open, democratic society.

Conflicts involving freedom of expression are among the most dif­ficult ones that courts are asked to resolve. Free speech cases fre­quently involve a clash of fundamental values. For example, how should the law respond to a speaker who makes an unpopular state­ment to which the listeners react violently? Should police arrest the speaker or try to control the crowd? Courts must balance the need for peace and public order against the fundamental right to express one's point of view.

The language of the First Amendment appears absolute ("Con­gress shall make no law"). However, freedom of speech is at times limited by government action. To understand these limits, you should be familiar with exceptions to the rule that protects all ex­pression. These exceptions include obscenity, defamation, commer­cial speech, and fighting words. They will be discussed in more detail in the following sections. Governments can also regulate speech using clear, specific rules limiting the time, place, and manner of the speech.

Courts have ruled that laws governing free speech must be clear and specific. This is so that a reasonable person can understand what ex­pression is prohibited. Laws also need to be clear so they can be en­forced in a nondiscriminatory way. Laws governing free speech that are not clear and specific can be struck down by courts on grounds of vagueness.

In addition, laws that regulate free speech must be narrowly drafted to prohibit only as much as is necessary to achieve the gov­ernment's goals. Laws that unnecessarily prohibit too much expres­sion can be struck down by courts on grounds of over breadth. In specific cases, courts may strike down vague or overbroad statutes, even if the expression in question could have been prohibited under a clearer, more narrowly drafted law.

Besides rules against vagueness and over breadth, some actions that may not appear to be speech are sometimes given First Amend­ment protection. Foremost among these is symbolic speech.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14