What exactly is meant by "Freedom of speech" in the constitution?
914342
First Amendment of the Constitution\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\nThe Amendment was meant to protect all citizens from censorship, particularly when criticizing the government.\n\nHowever, the Bush Administration attempted to violate these rights during anti-war protests but when thousands of activists were brought to court on charges of raising their voices up against the war, the judges had to overturn the charges citing the first Amendment.\n\nThe Bush Administration keeps many civil liberties attorneys quite busy protecting the rights of citizens.\n\nThe Constitution was being dismantled by the Bush piece by piece as he instituted amendments against many basic rights. Voting people feared these rights were being lost forever so they voted the Republicans out in large numbers during the last election.
954054
(Ah, sounds like a homework question)\nIt depends upon how literal you want to go with "not listed in the Constitution."\nThe biggest one is the right to privacy, which includes right to contraception (Griswold v. Conn.) the right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade) and the right to consensual private sexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). \nNext, I'd say rights that "spring" from dileaneated rights.  For example, the right to have "Miranda" warnings springs from the 5th Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause.  The right to flag burning and other "expressive conduct" springs from the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.  The right to be free from state sponsored segregation springs from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  The right to (basically) unlimited spending of money for political speech springs from the First Amendment Free Speech clause.  \nIn all of those in the above paragraph, there is nothing in the constitution about getting Miranda warnings, about schools not being segregated, or about getting to spend as much money as you want, but the Courts have interpreted concrete clauses in the constitution as providing those rights.\n\nPowers not in the Constitution that are returned to the States / People:\nPower to regulate real property and conveyances thereof (almost exclusively state controlled)\nPower to enact generally applicable criminal laws (almost all criminal law is state law)\nPower to decide how Presidential Electors are chosen.\nPower of localities to regulate business licenses and zoning laws (not in contradition with federal civil rights)\n\nJust a few.
321747
Freedom  of speech and Freedom of thought are two different things. People often want freedom of speech even when they have freedom of thought.\nFreedom of thought is a healthy thing which every one should need and Freedom of speech depends on tolerance of world. The world is not utopian enough to be tolerant to bear all the thrash being said.
104127
The obvious example is not to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater. I can say anything I want to, but will the outcome injure people?  Freedom is restraint, words and deeds. Limitations on my freedom come from within me, that's called restraint.  You can say almost anything to me and I won't get offended, others are not the same. I hope this makes sense.
863373
It is a sad state in this nation that to exercise your freedom of speech at a protest that you need to have a permit. That is total BS.\n\nThe first amendment of the constitution is my irrevocable permit.
221858
What do you mean the right? We have free speech don't we?
392150
I don't think we've ever had true freedom of speech.  For example, you've never been able to walk into a crowded theater and yell fire.  If you do, you'll get arrested for causing a disturbance.\n\nTrue freedom of speech would be being able to say what you want, when you want regardless of what happens.  Under the bush administration I do feel like we've lost some of that freedom (If you say anything anti-Bush, you are declared a terrorist or a troop basher).  Sad days, good news is he can't be in office for that much longer!
368754
this webpage describes it to great detail\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment
274742
There are limits on freedom of speech. Recently, a Danish newspaper printed a catricture of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam and it resulted in petitions, letters from head of Muslim states, and protests, both peaceful and violent. The reaction was very negative.\n\nA good quote on this issue is, "''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects." - W. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England 151-52.\n\nI believe that freedom of speech can and should be limited, and all that freedom of speech means is that Congress should not make laws that place previous restraints on the press or on speech. Illegal speech can and should be punished. A person should be able to say whatever they want but they should also be accountable for what they say.
125455
No... Why? First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech.
802001
See newt gingrich's comment about restricting free speech, kinda says it all. I say any attempt to limit free speech or any other attacks on our constitution should be dealt with by revolution!
209698
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution\n\n"Congress 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\nFreedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly and right to petition.   Wow!!!!!!!!  Sometimes I forget how powerful and important those rights are!    To have our own opinions and be able to freely express them ! ! ! ! !  Wow! ! ! ! ! ! !
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.
125011
The government may make no law respecting your freedom of speech. (1st Amendment).  No state may make any law depriving you of your freedom of speech (14th Amendment).  The freedom of speech applies to personal speech, political speech and even to a lesser extent, commercial speech.  In general, no prior restraint may be made against your freedom of speech (Times v. Sullivan).  However, the freedom of speech is not absolute.  You may not exercise freedom of speech when to do so would subject the public to danger (for example, you may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire).  This is a synopsis of ideas from the Constitution and many Supreme Court cases.\n\nYour exercise of freedom of speech may not interfere with other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Many cases have addresssed the use of religious symbols in public places as well as actions of political speech such as burning of the American flag. These cases are not always models of consistency.\n\nSuffice it to say that freedom of speech is well protected but not absolute.\n\n\nIn the context of these cartoons and comments, at least in the USA, you can publish these ideas, even if they are offensive to others.  You are really not addressing the "freedom of speech" as such as much as you are addressing editorial judgment of the press.  While the press is free to say what it wants, it ought to consider the sensibilities of others, especially those who might legitimately take offense to the writings or utterances.
412329
Of course one cannot use one's rights as a defense of a crime.\n\nSome speech is a crime: inciting to riot, advocating the violent overthrow of the government, slander, libel, etc.  And freedom of speech also is not just "to express an opinion," as in artistic works or mere entertainment....\n\nIt is wrong to think of people "abusing their rights":  if someone kills someone with a gun, that is not an abuse of the right to bear arms, that is murder.  The whole idea of "abuse of rights" is a sneaky linguistic ploy by people who would like to abridge our rights, especially for their own ends.\n\nThe kind of speech you refer to, when not actually a crime, is referred to in law as "obnoxious speech" and it is protected by the 1st amendment - neo-Nazi and KKK stuff and so on, for example, that contain obnoxious statements about race and lifestyle.\n\nWe can't really have freedom of speech unless all speech is free, even vile speech.\n\nThe Constitution does not give us rights.  Rather, it forbids the government from abridging or prohibiting our rights, which are seen as inherent in being human, as being part the nature of a human being.\n\nSo rather than to call on people not to upset society so that it won't take away our rights, we should be doing what it looks like we do: condemn obnoxious speech openly and vigorously while being vigilant against attempts to curtail our rights as human beings.
453707
Not real sure what you want?\n\nTry looking at The United States Bill Of Rights.\n\nFree - speech, religion, right to trial, right of privacy, right to own property, etc.
155702
yes i think that censorship limits freedom of speech. censorship pretty much tells everyone that we cannot express the way we feel or what we think. if those who signed the bill of rights really didnt want to be able to express ourselves the way want they would have probably said that we had the freedom of censorship and not speech or some of the people would simply not have signed it all.