Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- vondranlegal.co.... [over 750 videos and growing]. Subscribe for new videos: bit.ly/38vXDzk
Thank you for supporting LEGAL EDUCATION and EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE! Yes, you can SHARE OUR VIDEOS on your social media networks.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT - GENERAL OVERVIEW
Most people think "I can say whatever I want its a free country" or "with free speech I can say whatever is on my mind." While this may be physically true, legally free speech can be costly. Most people I have met in my life really don't know much about the first amendment free speech. As Attorney Steve points out in the video "Free speech is not absolute." Speech can be regulated, prohibited, or outlawed in certain instances making your speech potentially illegal resulting in civil fines, penalties, damages, lawsuits, or worse yet, criminal violations such as a misdemeanor or potentially a felony.
Some areas that are "not absolute" are:
1. Hate speech (can you put hateful or offensive words on a state vanity license plate)?
2. Fighting words
3. Clear and present danger / inciting riots (I think we are learning something about this these days)
4. Defamation (libel / slander)
5. Disclosure of trade secrets or breaching non-disclosure agreements
6. Obscenity
7. Certain commercial speech (ex. false advertising)
Watch this video so you can be ONE UP on your friends who do not truly understand the 1st amendment, or how it requires a "state actor" in most cases, or how the 1st amendment is incorporated into the 14th amendment and made applicable to the states or fail to understand the "strict scrutiny" test for laws that infringe on, or impinge free speech rights keeping in mind that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations on free speech (not directed toward the content of the message) will normally be upheld as constitutional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🔥 Check out my video on WINNING SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUITS here 🔥 www.youtube.co....
👨🎓 Learn how to register a trademark WITHOUT A LAWYER here 👨🎓
www.youtube.co....
✔️ Get some tips on MEDIATION SUCCESS here ✔️
www.youtube.co....
✈️ Watch my video on ULTIMATE DEPOSITION TIPS here ✈️
www.youtube.co....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
💡 Join us on Social Media 💡
LinkedIn: / stevevond. .
Instagram: / attorneysteve
Facebook: / attorneystev. .
Twitter: / stevevondran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🖥️ Contact us for a consultation 🖥️
www.vondranleg...
☎️ Or call us at ☎️
(877) 276-5084
(time permitting - we cannot respond to ALL calls)
☁️ For advertising, promotional, and endorsement opportunities, visit us at ☁️
www.vondranleg....
(We can help promote your law or legal related or other products)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
👉🏻 More Important Info! 👈🏻
🎥 Attorney Steve's Setup 🎥
www.vondranleg...
🕺🏻 Merchandise 🕺🏻
www.vondranleg...
🌟 Avvo Client Reviews 🌟
www.avvo.com/a....
🙌🏻 Support us on Patreon 🙌🏻
/ attorneysteve. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🏢 Main Office 🏢
San Francisco Office: www.vondranleg....
Other Locations:
Phoenix - Camelback Office: www.vondranleg....
Phoenix - Uptown Office: www.vondranleg....
San Diego Office: www.vondranleg....
Orange County Office: www.vondranleg....
Santa Monica Office: www.vondranleg....
Copyright Policy Institute Office:
Washington D.C. www.copyrightp...
NOTICE: This website is general legal information only and not legal advice. Please do not rely. Some information may not be accurate. We are licensed in CA and AZ. Check your local rules. Parts of our videos may constitute “fair use” under the copyright laws, if you have an issue, please call us at (877) 276-5084. We are not liable for your use or viewing of our videos. Thanks for watching!
© 2020 Attorney Steve Vondran. All rights reserved.
These are healthy protests. Stretch your first amendment legs folks. People of all races are coming out and getting together, talking in real time. We need this interaction. In fact, we should all get out everyone we see injustice in the world, no matter the identity at issue. Not just "taking a knee" on mainstream media/social media command, but doing the right thing EVERY TIME. I believe in the great melting pot do do you? If so, we have to come together on ALL injustices not just cherry picking. PS looting steals the thunder from the real message, try to resist freebies, stay focused on the message. I hope we are all #TeamAmerica #TeamJusticeForAll
Make sure to watch my NEW VIDEO on constitutional rights in emergency times. Learn the Lingo so you can at least sound intelligent. ua-cam.com/video/MKk87pOAm3s/v-deo.html
thanks, i needed this for a twitter argument.
LOL i do too
@INERT No it isn't you can clearly look at any contract you sign any site you apply for any university you go to and see this is a repeating pattern you do not have total and unrestricted free speech. A lot of hate speech gets counted as harrassment if it isn't restricted to reasonable time and place such as another person harassing you or someone cutting you off on the road and then you can be charged for it. I believe the laws were put into place in this way as a sort of a cop out to not have to tell everyone that they do not have total and complete freedom of speech but if you take even 5 minutes to think about it its obvious.
Well thank God your Twitter cred is safe close one bud. What would do without twiting?
yea, my friend constantly goes off about his first amendment rights in discord
Hi, I am in nursing school and I am taking an extra federal government class for my degree. I have an exam in the morning and this video has literally saved me- thank you so much. History is not my thing at all but this was so easy to understand, I also love your energy and passion!!
What class you taking?
Thanks Allison, glad I could help you ace it!! Steve
@Allison Higginbotham I retired as a RN from the TX HHSC, after a 30-yr career. I’m here brushing up before a demonstration against Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy. I’m a native Texan, but have friends who are not. Here’s hoping you find your career as rewarding as I did! 👏🙏😊❣️
Watch your P's and Q's.......and R's - [NFL player fired over twitter rant] apnews.com/0c01a7195325b369be9250f89845d6f2
I have needed attorneys in the resent past and I really feel obligated to say that we all need attorneys... I know many jokes and not some much a joke statements have always been made about attorneys being bad... there s bad and good in EVERYTHING! And because there are bad ones out there that’s all the more reason we need people like this nice young man! Hank you for these videos pal
Clear and present danger standard was refined. It’s now incitement of imminent lawless action test.
The law has changed quite a bit since this video was made. For example, the year after this video was released, the Court held there was no hate speech exception to the First Amendment
Brandenburg
Here is another angle to think about. Some Universities receive federal funds. For example, University of Washington at Seattle. So they are basically "state actors" in my opinion. And they have policies against "Harassment" or "Bullying" isn't "Hate Speech" just a wolf in sheeps clothing? In other words, if you exercise your "hate speech" right as I have heard people insist you have, are you not risking being disciplined for a college or University's "Code of Conduct"? When you dig down and take a close look I don't believe the line is as clear as many like to think it is. Perhaps "hate speech" is subject to "time, place and manner" restrictions and subject to 3rd party interpretation/discretion? If true, is that really "total freedom" or absolute free speech?
Here is a student harassment policy I found on U of W website. Think about whether if you engaged in an act of "hate speech" could they discipline you under their rules? Could it be considered harassment? Stalking? Bullying? I believe many administrators would say "yes" it would or could, even government funded colleges and institutions.
WAC 478-121-133
Harassment or bullying.
Harassment or bullying is LANGUAGE or conduct that is UNWELCOME and sufficiently SEVERE, persistent, or pervasive such that it could reasonably be expected to create an "intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment," or has the purpose or effect of "unreasonably interfering" with a person's academic or work performance, or a person's ability to participate in or benefit from the university's programs, services, opportunities, or activities, when viewed through "both an objective and subjective standard." This includes harassment or bullying that occurs through electronic means, such as electronic media, the internet, social networks, blogs, cell phones, or text messages.. (italics and caps are mine to highlight the areas that create vast amounts of discretion as to whether the speech was "unwelcome" or "severe" viewed by both an "objective" and "subjective" standard.
Notice: It will also be extremely doubtful you would ever see any notice of "your constitutional rights" - ex. "By the way your right to engage in Hate Speech is Constitutionally Protected." That I have not seen. This is intended as food for thought for people who see things as absolute. I see hidden traps not that I have any intent or interest in spouting or even listening to hate speech.
R&D Grant Money - finance.yahoo.com/news/universities-getting-the-most-government-money-185831904.html
Yeah, so what if the government colludes with private so-called social sites to censor a citizen to favor one political party over another?
I am finishing out my 2L year with a final in Constitutional Law. This video was awesome and real simple to understand. Thanks for taking the time to post these videos.
You are welcome Daniel. Way back when I passed the California bar exam (first attempt) because some random guy posted a bunch of stuff. Now, I am "Random Guy" so good luck and pay it forward when you get established. SV
How did you do?
@@Souflay1 Patricia asking the real questions
Your chart was amazing. It helped me pass my First Amendment Exam in L.S.!
Yeah!!
Love you videos ! I don’t know if you have , you should do a break down of all the amendments. You are very knowledgeable .❤️
Good Idea Hamed.......I will pull out my pocket constitution and do that one day soon. Steve
Why aren't you my teacher!!!! So good, I understand everything now! THANKS!
Wow thanks attorney Steve that was amazing short sweet to the point where we regular citizens can understand!! Appreciate you God bless you!
Offensive Speech (i.e. Hate Speech) can be curbed by California DMV? More food for thought and good natured discussion. ua-cam.com/video/oEn0fFmCcoM/v-deo.html
Great video. Thanks.
*leaves to continue argument with relatives
Not being a narcissist or anything like that, I couldn't resist clicking on the title of this video.
Here is another one. Parents in Temecula are concerned over the "age-appropriate" curriculum for 1st graders. The school board is afraid of harsh comments and so California wants to enact a law that prevents free expression in opposition. Parents would be subject to a misdemeanor charge, facing a $500-$1,000 fine and jail time of up to a year for causing "substantial disorder" at these meetings. SB 596 also expands the definition of "school employee" to "any employee or official of a school district, a charter school, a county office of education, a county board of education, the state board, or the State Department of Education." This is not free speech is it? www.foxnews.com/media/critics-warn-california-bill-protecting-school-officials-would-punish-parents-speak-out-board-meetings
I'm here because the is a large group of people online thinking that 1st amendment applies to companies and their "censorship" . Elon Musk fans should watch this video.
Yes, companies are free to censor, and usually do so citing community guidelines, which they are of course allowed to have. SV
Jack Dorsey disliked this video
Nah, me and Jack go way back!! lol
2:57 - Is Steve sippin' on a 40 ounce during this presentation? Gangsta!
HAHAHAHAH! I thought exactly the same
I should probably try that, might liven up the presentation!! Hahaha
LOL....you guys are funny!!
I heard something about 10 years ago the rest of my family went to Europe and they replace them here,
with people from there.
That none of my real family is here in the family (the bag)
that they are represented to belong to today.
That I was supposed to be put in to my family within the last couple of years.
but they went to I guess an actor company and hired someone to play my part.
.
I was also told that some people from Africa are the ones that are stealing my money now????
...
But I don't know if that is part of or separate from the blue cheese and whoever has a power of attorney or Faked paper marriage paperwork to steal my money.....
Because I saw these trash people from that crime family wearing and wanting my family's memorabilia....
.
And they are still stealing it with some kind of a line to my real family/ ppl who know me.
who knows that I am in a submarine.
And whenever they give money these trash people steal it. whenever they give donations like shoes or close.
These people steal it.
I also heard something about a $300 monthly gift card that is supposed to go to me.
that these people also steal.
.
They keep me isolated behind an invisible fence to make sure that I cannot get to or be seen by any of the people who think that they are giving me money.
......
. I also heard something about a nun who gave access to an account for me to get my teeth fixed and these trash people set me up with a mobile dentist clinic for the homeless while they all got their teeth fixed with that account.
.
Can someone please get this to law enforcement....
.
His name is Steve.
he livesd at sha.
he pretended to be my friend Cj when my brother Danny from Ohio came to give me my inheritance from my dad.
it was a storage locker a security deposit box and an iron piggy bank.
... the ghetto trash took and split it up between themselves.
.
Steve,cris,Darell,rich,megan.
Rebecca?
.
I was told that Mary on the third floor of building 500 has my card?...
Hahaha got to the end and was planning to watch it again when you said watch it twice or three times.
The "Clear and Present Danger" test was superceded by Brandenburg v Ohio. The test now is applied through the Imminent Lawless Action test described sua sponte Brandenburg
Very educational. Thank u.
You got it!!
Facebook (a supposed free speech platform) looks to crack down (and eliminate) "hate speech" pjmedia.com/trending/facebook-asks-on-every-post-is-this-hate-speech/
Thanks Steve... This was very helpful .
My pleasure!
Apart from the Amendments that exist, has there ever been a proposal to add new Amendments. What mechanism would the USA need to use, to bring about such a thing?
Great question. Hard to do. Here is some information. www.thoughtco.com/how-to-amend-the-constitution-3368310
France wants to regulate "hate speech" but how do you define this? Many political tweets can be seen as hateful.......(at least to the opposing party). Fight for free speech everywhere. You won't know what you have lost until it's gone. - Attorney Steve - www.apnews.com/89dd24221b5043fd848ee974cc6d98fe
Hate speech is free speech unless there is a clear threat. The Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is protected.
I agree with your point. However, hate speech can cause you to lose a job yes or no? I never relish in the "freedom" of something where it can have such negative potential consequences. Another example, what happens if you try out your hate speech on a police officer who pulls you over on a traffic stop? How does that play out? Perhaps they call it "breach of the peace?" Just some things to think about.
Losing a job doesn’t have anything to do with the first amendment since the government is not involved. Disrespecting a police officer is not illegal, although I agree that it would obviously not be wise. Overall, I agree that hate speech can certainly have negative consequences, although the government itself is limited in what they can do about hate speech.
@@ryandelta11 Not really because then you can just be charged for harassment or incitement which is literally them charging you for your use of free speech which isn't actually all that free.
DietyOfWind That is only if you are inciting violence or specifically and repeatedly targeting someone
@@ryandelta11 Well yes thats what were talking about im just saying the gov finds ways to charge you for it without calling it hate speech but its obvious that your bing charged because of said hate speech under the guise of different things.
With this Supreme Court decision hanging out there, do you really feel confident walking up to somone in a mall, for example, and exercising your so-called right to HATE SPEECH? I am not sure it is a safe and guarded as most people seem to think.
According to wikipedia
]
The FIGHTING WORDS doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[3] It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
WORDS THAT INFLICT INJURY IT SAYS.........do you know what that means?
And as you will probably see over the next few years (which seems to be a trend as far as I can tell) is the major social media platforms (twitter, youtube and facebook) - which could probably be construed as "public forums" given their reach - cracking down on "hate speech" (or being pressured to do so) One wonders just who makes that determination, and just how broad the net will be. Although first amendment does not apply to PRIVATE companies, nonetheless it shows, to me, another example of an inclination (maybe a trend) not to truly respect the concept of free speech. ca.news.yahoo.com/france-tougher-social-media-hate-speech-pm-131005900--business.html.
So with the 1972 case Grayned v. City of Rockford, the Supreme Court found that "The nature of a place, the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable." and since social media is open to all people over the age of 14 and is used for public discourse (i.e. post can be made "global" and thereby indexed by search engines) could an argument be made that social media is a digital public forum and thereby protected under the first amendment?
Another exception to free speech (in California): Doctors who intentionally seek to disseminate false information about Covid. Query: why does this apply only to doctors? Will this have a chilling effect on doctors who may have their own beliefs based on observation and study? leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2098
All speech should be protected and people should just act more responsibly…
I agree, the hard part is getting people to act responsibly....
quick question is photography a form of freedom of speech / freedom of expression, thank you
So- would an example of TPM be like a board of education meeting or other public hearing?
Thank you for effort, Steve.
My pleasure, thank you! SV
@@attorneysteve That is why your country is going to be the best of the best of the best in the World.
You cannot PREACH in a crowded theater (charged with misdemeanor). losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/04/27/redlands-preacher-michael-webber-avengers-panic/
Steve, if you really want to dazzle your friends even more tell them about Forum Analysis. You touched on it lightly with T,P,M and strict scrutiny, but tell them about traditional, designated, and nonpublic fora in detail and they'll think you are smarter than Einstein.
I will do a video on that......great call! Cheers! Steve
I feel smart for having just learned about this in pre-law!
Thank you, Sr.
You are welcome!! SV
Thanks Attorney Steve
My pleasure, glad you liked it!! Steve
This is useful for knowimg what stance to take on the alex jons ban case. Thx so much!
What stance are you going to take?
Steve Vondran this would honestly make a good case study for you. Cuz im split, both sides.. from what mainstream media (nbc,cbs,abcfox) has said vs what independent media has said. (Ex. The young turks, Jimmy Dore, Rational national)
@TheReddPerkins I think he may be referring to whether or not the gov should start regulating these social media platforms due to the Monopoly they have on the market.
Thanks boss! This was very useful!
You are very welcome!!
The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals. Under this right is the right of the people to petition Congress. It is also what allows for lobbying the government. I think, though I am not certain, that this right is also what allows for government officials to file letters of dissent: essentially a petition to the government, from within the government itself.
Interesting.....did not know that. Thanks for the addon!! Steve
@@attorneysteve Most welcome, good sir! I love constitutional law. Great video, btw! :D
@@sagesheahan6732 thank you!
You are welcome Shantania!
Another limit on free speech - the "Broadcast Hoax" ua-cam.com/video/ZsWnN2j4fvs/v-deo.html
No hate speech laws exist or statutes exist in the US! Hate speech is protected! the only speech is not protected is when a person calls directly for violence, or defamation, but that is difficult to prove!
“Free speech is not absolute; that has been true from the very beginning,” emeritus professor at Berkeley Law and First Amendment expert Jesse H. Choper told us. But where one draws that line is something that does not have a clear answer. He told us that there is a real lack of definition about “what is hate speech and under what circumstances does it lose First Amendment protection.”.....According to the ACLU hate speech is only protected if "non-violent" in nature. To me, it's a fine line between hate speech and clear and present danger (or "fighting words").....you may be right techincally, but the undertones are always there. You cross the lines at your own peril. www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/18/constitutional-limits-free-speech/
I have your answer to government redress.. National security matters are not heard in hearings by State Boards of Nursing. The alligatons that resulted in the state governments of California and Nevada revoking my Registered Nurse license by default was based on MANY violations of the U.S Constitution. (Have to see it to believe it). My letter from the Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division in the DOJ obtained by US Senator Kyrsten Sinema about me being a victim of Iranian terrorism, (State Sponsored Terrorism) will most likely cause a complete revoking of many state government Attorneys licenses, plus many other sanctions.
Great video. What about the advertisements where Samsung mocks Apple. Ford mocks Toyota, etc. Is that not protected?
Can you do a video on all the amendments please
That is a great idea. I used to have a pocket constitution from law school. Have not been able to find it for years. I will order a new one on Amazon, and yes, I really like that idea. Thank you. Steve . (will try to post this Month).
Makes perfect sense ...rights can't be infringed but we'll point to statutes of infringements...🤔 Are we missing something here ?
Rules have exceptions....just the way it is...
If within the rule it states there can't be no exceptions how could there be without breaking the rule ?
Please help. I am a U.S. citizen who's internet is being routed? through EU. This is the 4th computer on it's way to being destroyed like the others due to "thought crimes". I have tons of proof and I've had enough. Any help would be appreciated. Software is installed within seconds on my computers in the "privacy" of my own home. Thank you!
Facebook Twitter (for the moment) etc are Publicly traded companies and are bound in their charters to follow all rules and regulations of the United States and of the state in which they are domiciled or where they conduct the preponderance of their business. Standard language for any US based corporation. If their business intersects with the public square and they maintain an implied or explicit market dominance and they act in the manner of a state actor without the express permission of the company controlling governmental body, they become liable for any and all violations (to include rights of third parties express or implied) of law rule or regulation. There is as yet no controlling precedent that directly addresses corporate culpability for violations of the kind you imply with companies such as Facebook or Twitter. The nearest thing we have is probably either Marsh v. Alabama or Robins v Pruneyard. Notwithstanding the 9th circuit decision in PragerU v. Alphabet Inc. Which is not applicable until and unless SCOTUS takes up the case and either reverses and remands or let's the decision stand
I think you hit the key point when you noted "and they act in the manner of a state actor" (I agree, seems like a public square, but then again, it is accessible from your home computer, not by walking on two feet). But note, a politician cannot block you on facebook or twitter, because they are a "state actor."
@@attorneysteve So let's look at the boxes that they (Facebook Twitter et al) check. Domiciled in the US? ✔ Domiciled in a state in the US? ✔ (Facebook is Domiciled in Delaware as is Twitter and Alphabet Inc. Parent of Google inc.) Dominance of a market? Twitter Google and Facebook fulfill this criteria easily ✔ Has taken enforcement action traditionally thought of as purely in the purview of a state government without the express request or permission of that government. ✔ By those criteria these companies theoretically are acting as the company town in Alabama did in the 1940's and from which arose Marsh v Alabama. Potentially they cross the line of Robins v. Pruneyard too. All that truly remains is for someone with sufficient standing to challenge them legally, at which point should they lose could conceivably have to recompense the winner for the harms they inflicted.
Very educational video, thanks.
Hate speech and obscenity are largely protected and criminalizing it is heavily scrutinized in the supreme court. Obscenity is only criminalized if it is out in public. And even this is scrutinized.
a great reminder of another way to view the 1st amendment. oh and I knew that info on the 14th amendment too Steve and i'm just a regular dude.
Right on!!
Why are private companies not bound to the constitution the literal law of the land on AMERICAN soil
Freedom of speech has consequences, so not so free after all. I should have put PC - Political Correctness - as an exception to free speech. www.mediaite.com/online/update-office-depot-joins-companies-pulling-ads-from-laura-ingrahams-fox-news-show/. Who agrees?
I always thought that if someone slanders or even libels someone they are protected if the information is true. Example might be if someone witnesses a celebrity cheating on their spouse and they then write an article about it they are protected and cannot be sued by that celebrity for libel, Am I correct? If not can someone explain the liability?
Here is a good video to watch.... ua-cam.com/video/fhOsI1daHy8/v-deo.html
@@attorneysteve Thanks great info, enjoy your videos!!
What do you think about making social media platforms "public forum "?
I may stand against him, knowing that the "not absolute speech" that you have mentioned allows gov't, and supposed business (though not stated) to regulate slander and libeling which jones is accused of. However I here plenty of arguments that shutting out people of not absolute speech have a backfiring effect to it. It's really difficult to really decide.
Thank you for this educational video... it’s very insightful and detailed.. I want to do a blog on first amendment and teach as I learn along... new sub here.. any tips are welcomed
the only thing that is not protected is threats.
What about harassment?
obviously harassment should be illegal and would be similar to threats.
Great video!
Thank you!!! SV
HELLO, IM IN A POLITICAL SCIENCE CLASS AND IT REALLY HELPED ME OUT IN MY ASSIGNMENTS, THANK YOU ANS I'M HOPING YOU ARE STILL ACTIVE IF SO, CAN YOU DO ONE ON THE HISTORY OF HATE CRIMES.
Another recent example of "offensive" speech being a CRIME. No threats, just highly offensive speech. I realize it is not from the U.S. but I would bet most American wouldn't show much outrage if this guy went to jail in the U.S. www.newsweek.com/youtuber-count-dankula-who-taught-dog-nazi-salute-faces-jail-hate-crime-853470
appreciate your viewpoints!
Why did you say the the BOR’s are not part of the Constitution?
This might help explain - constitutionus.com/bill-of-rights/is-the-bill-of-rights-part-of-the-constitution/
What about a social media statement being used against a person because of statements that are biblical being used against them to make them look nuts. Doesnt that fall under it?
Seems contradictory to use the Sullivan case as an example of freedom of the press not being protected, when in fact the NY Times won that case, and their erroneous information was not considered libel.
Kev, the point I was trying to make is media defendants, like everyone, have free speech (they can write what they want) but if they have knowledge that what they are writing is false, or reckless disregard of the truth, that speech may lead to defamation cause of action. So like all free speech, you can say it, but there can be consequences. Thanks for your comment.
Possibly the Public Disclosure of Private Facts, like a individual's personal Medical(HIPAA), Educational(FERPA), and Financial records are also, Not protected speech under the 1st Amendment?
Good one!!
Can you *_spell_* FIRE in a crowded theater?!!
🤓
:
what if there really is a fire in the theater? i wont tell anyone!!! ha ha evil!!!
+smooth457
Then you would considerately have warned the movie-goers of the impending circumstance.
Too bad for those whose can't spell. Hopefully they will catch on when the theater begins to empty.
Also be first to make your way to an outside exit door before loudly vocalizing the select characters of the alphabet.
:
lol....
"Expressions of bias" can be reported at University of Illinois. Does this include hate speech? Read on. wwwt.campusreform.org/?ID=11705
A witness in a congressional hearing cannot call a member "stupid" - imagine that. ua-cam.com/video/wsCbLSqz85s/v-deo.html
very great video thanks
Thanks for the compliment - appreciate it!!
UA-cam yanks channels over HATE SPEECH - news.yahoo.com/youtube-shuts-down-far-channels-over-hate-speech-011652766.html
I think you go to the wrong kind of parties lol
I must be getting old!! : )
Another great video i enjoy defending certain rights using the federalist papers as my authority and i points out when you said "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". Whats the most important word "THE" the freedom of speech it suggest that the freedom of speech pre existed congress. It doesnt say congress shall grant the freedom of speech. The logic today is that YES you have rights unless there is a law forbidding your actions. I find this view absurd because the founders would have simply wrote " the people shsll have the right to do whatever is not against the law " but they didnt. Rights are negative in nature and positivism is freedoms biggest threat
I agree with you for the most part. Hate speech is protected, but I think its not that cut and dry to just call it a day on that point. I think people have to be careful because one person's free speech is another persons "fighting words" or "harassment" or "hostile working environment" or "threat" or "intimidation."
The free speech organization ACLU recognizes this when it talks about one-on-one racial slurs. Certainly a racial slur is hate speech at its finest, and if you think that is protected by first amendment, all I am saying is don't be surprised if free speech is not as free (and without consequences) as you might think it is. In other words, I think hate speech (the concept) is something to consider before "exercising your rights." It may not be outlawed per se, so I agree to that extent, and thank you for your comments. Worth a read. www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus
private companies are State Chartered, therefore come under government limitation?
thank you
You are welcome!!
Grievances like Covid deaths
did i miss it or did he not mention defamation had to be false?
Check at 5:58 - you missed it.
What about *_defecation_* of character?!!
😜
:
I would have to flush out the facts to see if it floats or not! Hahahaahaha
+Steve Vondran
Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!
:
now that's funny!
I know what you are saying , but I feel the word unconditional would be so much more understandable for our stupid youth lol over absolute
The I st Amendment you need to study ! All of you! It dont protect you from the laws!
You know the answer to that because you would not get all these different men to sign off and ratify the constitution if you started bullet pointing individual laws
Good point! SV
Hate speech? I'm not so sure about that one. Remember Branderburg vs. Ohio where KKK defended their right to threat a group but not individual person?
Do you think you can put anything you want on a government-issued license plate?
@@attorneysteve Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action
I mean that the bar for protecting 1st amendment was set quite high. God bless this country!
Can you please explain the hate speech part in detail? I guess hate speech is protected. The interesting thing is that the definition is unclear
Try to use a hateful word and get a vanity license plate from your state DMV. When they won't issue it, then it might make sense. SV
The "clear and present danger" test is no longer good case law; it was replaced (gradually) by levels of scrutiny...strict scrutiny for viewpoint-, content-, and speaker-based restrictions/burdens (except commercial speech) and intermediate scrutiny for all other speech restrictions (time, place, & manner; commercial speech; obscenity).
What if I say I have the inherent inalienable right de jure to speak, write or publish, and same rule applies for libel/slander, agreed the freedom speech is not absolute. Personally I like the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of rights...
Liberals watching this all like... 😡😡
great video, wish your camera recorded at 16:9
voxAETHER Maybe it does??? It is a canon XA10. I am basically an amateur video shooter, what does the 16:9 do for you, and where do you set that up? Thank you. Steve
Steve Vondran im not too sure about video shooting myself, but 16:9 refers to the aspect ratio of the video. So it refers to every 16 pixels in the horizontal direction 9 are in the vertical. this video is in the 4:3 ratio, which is an outdated format. I am not sure what video software you are using to render your video, but make sure under settings you are using the 16:9 aspect ratio. Off of my short googling of the canon XA10 it can do 1080p video so the reason the quality is so poor must be from the way you rendered the video. When saving the video make sure to save it at a higher quality and the 16:9 aspect ratio. best of luck to you. if you are having trouble look up tutorials for the video software you use.
voxAETHER Thank you for taking the time to give me some advice. I am going to look into this!! : ) Cheers!
only protects the people form the government a employer can fire you if he or she does not like what you post, a company can denies to to protest on their property if they want to
Wonder how this could apply to facebook ratings of a business
I was wondering if there is such a thing as truth in advertising? And if there are regulations in this area, how are religions treated when they make claims that are scientifically impossible. When children are told that jesus walked on water(as the truth) I think they might be guilty of libel (because it's written in the bible). Bible lible???
Thank you for laying things out for the normal people aka not attorneys hahaha.
What if a not absolute speech comes in contact with abosolute speech lik religion, does that give them the right to hate or defame? Or is it taken away as soon as you make hate speech and any other non protected speech?
being a lawyer looks like fun unless you where a patent lawyer. I heard they make the big bucks though. there are some real interesting cases out there. have you heard of the Michelle Carter case where she was found guilty of talking her boyfriend into suicide? I thought she was going to get off. that is somewhat a free speech case.
That sounds really interesting, may have to add that to my blog list! And law is fun if you find a practice area that suits you. If not, I think it can be a drag. Appreciate the comment!! Steve
ya her defense lawyer told the girl that she had a better chance with a judge because the jury would have no mercy on her. the thought was the judge would be more objective plus the story was all over the news in Massachusetts. which is rare because usually they tell you you have a better chance with a jury. they went with a judge with the case instead of jury which was her right.
Yes, your'e right. It's always a risk deciding between judge or jury. Tough call. Stay tuned, I think I am going to do a short brief on that. Steve
send a link to the blog or a video would be very interested either way . its a very interesting case. thanks
will do
😷
so if a private company by your logic does not want to serve blacks then they have a right to do that. if they put up signs that say no blacks then they have that right they are a private company. what if a private college no longer allows black people to talk at rally's?
smooth457 Do you think that would stand? That’s almost beyond a “free speech” question. After reading a few of your comments on this video I can tell it’s an issue you’re concerned about, but seemingly for the wrong reasons. Of course private companies should be able to choose whom they will serve and not serve. However, if they’re making a blanket statement and denying someone service based on an unchangeable trait - i.e. for African Americans, Homosexuals, Women, and so on, I don’t think that would or should be protected. Now, if for example a group of Nazis on Twitter regularly made threats and libelous statements against other people, it seems a company would be well within their rights to censure those individuals.
As for a private college saying that “black people” wouldn’t be allowed to talk at rallies, that would be clearly racist and repressive. I think it’s silly that you’ve even proposed that as a serious question. They clearly do not have that right and have not for some time.
Dont be ignorant of the law.