does the first amendment void defamation of character in some cases?
354267
There's also the issue of a Public Figure or matter of Public Concern.\n\nWhere the topic being described is a private individual, or a private matter, then the law favors the person complaining by assuming (taking their word) that the statement is false.\n\nHowever, where the statement is made about someone who is famous or an elected official (Public Figure), or about a topic that is of significant interest to lots of people (Public Concern) additional steps are required. The person complaining must also (in addition to the normal elements: publication, of/concern, etc.) prove that the statement is false. For public topics, falsity is no longer presumed.\n\nIn addition, the law requires that the person making the statement have a culpable mental state regarding the falsity of the statement. When talking about a Public Figure, the mental state is "actual malice", which means that the person making the statement either knew the statement was false, or made it with reckless disregard for whether it was false.\n\nWhen the statement is made about a matter of Public Concern, but talking about a private person (for example: what a generic citizen said an important town meeting), then the mental state required is negligence. Basically, the person making the allegedly defamatory statement had to at least been careless about whether the statement was true/false.\n\nWhen talking about a private person, in a private situation, no mental state is required. However, the person making the statement has the option of proving the statement was true, thus defeating the 'falsity' element of the tort.\n\nRegarding the opinion issue, it's also important to remember that some opinions can be defamatory. "I think he's a thief and a liar" implies factual assertions, so just adding "I think...." doesn't get the person off the hook. However, "He's ugly" is generally too subjective to be anything other than pure opinion.\n\nFinally, other 1st Amendment protections also apply for parody and satire, accurate reporting of public events, job references (where accurate information is requested), legislative and judicial privilege (testimony given during hearings), and a few other special cases.
99994
Did I miss something here? So far two people have referenced riot.\n\nYou have the right to free speech until someone finds it offensive and takes you to court for it.\n\nI belive the case was Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. \n\nIn short, if what you are saying in a public place offends the majority of the people around you and pose a 'breach of peace', you are not protected.
159577
Yes.  Freedom of speech does not include incitement.  You will be arrested, if you yelled "FIRE!" in a theather and cause a stampede and a few people died.
266260
The First Amendment reads:\n\nCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.\n\nThat means that criticism of the Government or of individuals is generally allowed. If it is libellous, then public officials can take legal action to defend their reputation. \n\nIn the world wars, the Supreme Court upheld laws against sedition. However, since the second world war, the Supreme Court has generally found in favour of free speech. In Yates vs Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that the Smith Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas". In other words, a person would have to specifically have to advocate violent action against the US Government in order to be seditious.
753152
Maybe but I doubt it......defamation would take more and continuing attacks on your character from the manager to really end up being defamation.  I think you have to be able to prove you are somehow harmed in your everyday life...to be truly defamed.
277002
Absolutely.  It's freedom of speech.  Its the first ammendment of the constitution.(Bill of rights section)
1171725
Provided you keep your wordings and expressions within the confines of the TOS then this medium is an extension of freedom of expression. However, should you choose to express yourself in ways that violate the TOS and incite tendancies that would or could be termed as threats to national security or persons then you could be held legally accountable for your actions.
916635
slander and defamation of character are two
17932
First Amendment jurisprduence tightly restricts Congress from enacting such regulations.  The Supreme Court has articulated a test in a case called Miller, which states that obscenity is unprotected, but requires it to meet three qualifications: First, the average person, applying community standards, considering the work as a whole, finds that the work appeals to the prurient interest; second, the work is a patently offensive depiction, applying community standards, of sexual conduct, as defined specifically by law; and third, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.  That's a lot of burdens for Congress to reach, and it often includes too much protected speech when trying to identify obscenity.\n\nThe Court allowed restrictions on child pornography, too, in Ferber, so long as the work, first, visually depicts minors, who, second, are engaged in sexual acts lewdly exhibiting their genitals.  The Court later interpreted this prohibition as only concerned with the well-being of children in the creation of pornography, not the fostering of child molesters, and so virtual child pornography was found protected, so long as no children were actually harmed.\n\nIt seems like the Supreme Court is currently protecting a lot under the First Amendment, even things that seems pretty dangerous or pretty valueless.  Congress will have its work cut out to try to pass better regulations that can pass the Court's scrutiny.
124486
Anyone can say anything he or she wants in this country - however that person can be held accountable for damage, defamation, reckless disregard for truth of falsity, libel, slander, - and yes, Diamond D. is correct. \n\nEven if I do NOT like what some one says, publishes, broadcasts, it is not against the law unless it falls out side of Constitutionally protected speech.  We have no prior restraint ( Near V Minn ) and one can collect damages for Actual Malice ( New York Times vs Sullivan ) - if they are not a public figure.\n\nFreedom of speech comes with responsibility and consequences.  And again to the Love it or Leave its out there - I would NEVER censor or try to deny their rights to their free expression of opinion.  They are American citizens and their speech is as protected - as MINE is. \n\nWorks both ways - but I will support their rights to free speech even if they do NOT support mine.
592096
Dear Friend,\n\nYes.  But the only "person" who can violate the First Amendment is the government (federal or state).  If a state official, acting under color of law, deprives you of your First Amendment rights, you can sue under what's called a Section 1983 claim.\n\nBut don't sue Godly George W.!\n\nYours in Him,\nFrancesois
246488
It depends. In order to determine whether something is libelous, a decision has to be made if the statement is (1) factually true; (2) an opinion protected under free speech, whether true or not; (3) factually untrue, but not malicious; or (4) factually untrue and intended to harm someone's reputation. The first three instances are not libelous, but the fourth example is. Judges have an obligation to obey the law, and if they sign orders recklessly with an intent to cause harm, some action may be taken against them under limited conditions. Judges lose their immunity from being sued under two conditions: (1) when they knowingly act without jurisdiction and (2) when they assume the role of a prosecutor. As it appears from the question that no hearing was held here, but the person was prosecuted without cause, I think that judicial immunity might fail here--if not for libel, but for an action based on a breach of Civil Rights. Filing an appeal doesn't resolve the underlying libel in the order, which was the point of the question; all an appeal does is force the victim to waste money having the libelous statements removed, while not curing the defamation.
138544
Yes you can (and it would be for libel, which is printed, as compared to slander, which is spoken). It does not matter if the piece is represented as fact or opinion and it does not have to have a financial effect on the person you are talking about. It only has to damage their character and reputation and be done in a public forum (which a blog would qualify as).\n\nThere are different rules for public officials and personalities as compared to regular people.\n\nBut yes, you can be sued for what you put in a blog, just like a newspaper, magazine or radio or television station ... you are putting out information into a public forum. And be careful, because even being found not guilty of charges will cost you lots and lots of money, so don't say anything that could even lead to a suit being filed ... it's why most media outlets spend big bucks on libel insurance and lots of lawyers.
1146943
yes yes, expect that picture to bite you in the butt when you go into politics later in life.  \n\ngranted a public place is a problem with random picture takers.  Just look at the media, press, celebrities and papparotzi.  However, there is such a thing as a lawsuit.  It might be more trouble that its actually worth, though.\n\nPlacing a picture taken in public on a website is covered by constitution stuff, and free speech, ie labeling the picture of you as a protestor, is also covered by the same clauses.  However, there is such a thing as slander and liability.  If the picture was posted with respect to you and the situation, you wouldn't be upset but now the picture was posted without regard to the truth.  (You were not there as a protestor)  Now you have a legal leg to stand on.\n\nSlander is a word that describes public statements that "slander" an individual's good character.\nLiability is a word that describes public writings that "slander" an individual's good character.\n\nWhile you have no rights to protect your face from being posted in this instance, you do have a right to protect your nature and good character.  I would talk to a lawyer and see if you can arrange a lawsuit based on the liability clause of a slanderous nature.  Protecting your image is important, especially when you are unsure where you will end up in the future.
56525
Ever hear of slander and libel.  Some lawyer or law student will probably explain to you all about it.
300403
First, a review. The current restrictions on free speech fall into several categories.\n\nLaws can restrict people (actually, punish them after the fact) from exercising their rights to free speech if those rules pass strict scrutiny. This means that the law/rule must be designed to achieve a compelling govt interest, and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest/goal through the least restrictive means. \n\nFor example, the govt has a compelling interest in preventing civil violence. Therefore, people cannot incite unlawful action or express themselves in such a way that they would provoke others to attack them. This is the familiar "fighting words" exemption. Incitement is not protected speech.\n\nAnother non-protected category is where people make "true threats" of imminent unlawful harm. True threats are also not protected speech.\n\nAlso, people are not allowed to spread blatant lies about someone that hurts the target's reputation. Defamation (libel and slander) is not protected speech. Still, if the statements are about a public figure or matter of public concern, even false statements are allowed if the speaker does not know they are false. This is because the constitutional free speech protections are stronger than the absolute ban when it comes to public matters.\n\nFinally, in a different direction, people cannot reveal national security secrets, because of the potential harm. Since this is such an immediate and likely-resulting danger, the prohibition put in place BEFORE the speaker reveals the information, rather than punishing them afterwards.\n\n\nThese are the existing restrictions. Past US laws (see the Sedition Act) have tried to make it illegal to question or criticize the government. The purpose of this law was to support the US government, by preventing any criticism of it. Some would argue that national stability is more important than the right to complain or criticize. The argument was basically: If you don't like what the government is doing, then just vote differently next time. But criticism of elected officials just undermines the public sense of security.\n\nSimilar arguments could be made anytime an issue is politically or emotionally charged. If public calm and peaceful existence are considered compelling interests (which is not too much of a stretch for the imagination) then the government would be able to punish any speech that disrupts the public peace. This includes prohibiting any protest rallies, or other hot-button issues. As the argument goes, since public security is dependent upon calm and orderly conduct, any threat to that calm is a threat to security. Under this theory, the government has a compelling interest in making sure that only non-conflict-causing speech is expressed.\n\nTo be clear: I don't agree with the above arguments. I think people should be allowed to say anything they want, provided they accept the consequences for their speech. For example, if someone spreads lies about a person, that's defamation (libel and slander) and they have to pay for the damage they cause. Just like a tresspasser would have to pay for any damage they cause to property. But that's not a reason to prevent people walking around.
807073
This is so cute.\nYou're talking about the first amendment, and saying you need an example from the newspaper.\n\nUmmm...how about you use the newspaper as your example.\n\nFreedom of press?