copyright
Are there de facto limitations on freedom of speech in the us?
<p>Consider someone hacking the super bowl and playing a Holocaust denial ad.</p>

<p>Ignore the trivial charges like hacking that occur regardless of the content.</p>

<p>Is there any further prosecution of the content <em>itself</em>?</p>

<p>For example, would the hacker be prosecuted for harassment due to the <em>content</em> negatively affecting Jews?</p>

<p>If a Jew died of a heart attack as a result of the content would the hacker be liable for that? Since this is fairly likely is there a de facto restriction on the content?</p>

<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has held time and time again that all restrictions on Speech must be "content neutral" and using the least restricted means available.   Furthermore, Speech is presumed to be "protected political speech" until proven other wise in a court of law.</p>

<p>This means that the specific nature of the hacked content (a pro Nazi ad) is no more illegal than the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_broadcast_signal_intrusion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1987 Max Headroom Broadcast Signal Intrusion</a>.   Wikipedia lists the maximum legal fine as a $1000 fine and a year in jail (although no one has ever been prosecuted for the incident.).  While the incident did include several obscene gestures that would not be allowed on Television, these restrictions are part of the deal for a broadcast signal licenses with the FCC and are not applicable in this case due to the crime being that the parties involved didn't have a broadcast liscense for that channel to begin with.</p>

<p>In the hypothetical where the unexpected interruption lead to a Jewish Man having a fatal arguement, again, the law is constructed in a manner to charge with a crime, specifically "Felony Murder".  Felony Murder is said to occur when a person, in the commission of a felony, is responsible for the death of another person, be it a co-conspirator or an innocent bystander.   The typical hypothetical case used for this is if a  bank robber with a non-functional gun (clearly intending to not hurt anyone) and the little old lady bank patron has a fatal heart attack when the robber brandishes the weapon and yells "Nobody move, this is a stick up."  Because robbing a bank is illegal, it doesn't matter that she was susceptible to heart attacks because she's an old lady, but that the robber chose to break the law and in doing so, directly caused the fatal heart attack.   If the crime in question is a misdemeanor that leads to someone's death, then the charge is Manslaughter, not Murder (i.e. If you are speeding going into a green light, and a kid runs into your path and is killed in the car crash, this could result in a manslaughter charge.  Even though the kid was Jaywalking, which is a crime, you were speeding, which is also a crime, and thus responsible for the fatality, but not to the level of murder, due to reckless disregard.).</p>

<p>In your scenario, the Jewish Man's death can be prosecuted, but is not specifically because of the content of the message broadcast (the Nazi ad) but the underlying crime of the broadcast hijacking a signal which he is not licensed to broadcast on by the FCC.  Given that the penalty includes a possible year in jail, this means the crime is a felony offense (and a Federal one at that, but that speaks more to the certainty of conviction on charges brought against the accused party.  The Feds are very very good at making sure they get their man).</p>

<p>Again, it is not specifically because content discussing conspiracies about the Nazis was broadcast (we're not arresting the History channel for all their Nazi conspiracy theories) but because the event violated a law that is content neutral.   If the hacker interrupted the signal to broadcast Martin Luther King Jr's. "I have a dream" Speech, causing a Klan member to die in shock, he'd be no less guilty of the same crimes as he would be in your scenario.   He did something illegal which resulted in someone's death.  The law doesn't care about the specific details of the content of the death in determining the charge.  Certainly the fact that the content was Nazi propaganda would matter, but only in establishing this particular case.   If a similar incident occurs and no one dies, then the second hacker wouldn't be charged with "attempted murder".</p>

<p>Even in the very limited restrictions on speech, context is critical and will be judged more then content.   The classic "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" is not universal.  I can in fact shout "Fire in a Crowded Theater" if there is in fact a fire... or I am speaking to the audience on matters of U.S. Free Speech and am pointing out a case where my shout is still protected because I am discussing an oft cited example case of speech that has reasonable restrictions but narrowly so and in certain contexts is still protected political speech (Deadpool eat your heart out on that meta).</p>

<p>Finally, since you bizzarely tagged this as copyright, the Supreme Court also held that trademarks are not government endorsement of speech and thus the government cannot with hold any registration of copyright's, trademarks, or patents because of the use of offensive language.   The case stems from an all Asian American band being denied the trademark for the act's name, which was a slur for Asian people that the band was trying to reclaim (aka using an offensive slur in a positive way to take it back from the bigots).  The court found in favor of the band as the government was using it's interpretation of the band's name as offensive to deny them equal protection under the law (in this case, the Trademark that would allow the Band the exclusive use of the stylized name in merchandise).</p>

<p>It's also very rare that a First Amendment case will be decided on a 5-4 decision margin by SCOTUS, and most justices tend to rule on the side that the First Amendment protects "the speech I do not like."  In fact, in the vast majority of cases dealing with the First Amendment, the justices tend to be 9-0 more often then not.</p>
