All legal concepts have limits. A famous court opinion provided the example of "a person yelling fire in a crowded theater" - likely to cause a panic which would result in trampling someone to death. The judge explained this is obviously NOT protected as free speech by the First Amendment. Nor is publishing the technical side of classified information about, say, a nuclear weapon. Such data is also NEVER covered by automatic declassification rules, and remains classified forever. Freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government may have limits as well. General MacArthur confronted the Bonus Army - 43,000 marchers (17,000 WWI veterans and their families and affiliated groups) led by (former) Sgt Walter W Waters in 1932. These soldiers held "bonus certificates" payable in 1945 (with interest), but they wanted immediate payment (because of the Great Depression).

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

This action was never tested in court, but may or may not have been legal under the First Amendment. I am glad I was not a US Army soldier present, because I might have refused to obey the order - which might have resulted in my being shot - given the temper of the General in question. A judge advocate general training my military police unit handed us a copy of the Bill of Rights. He declared "memorize it - I expect you to honor it - if you don't, I will prosecute you to the full extent of the law." But refusing to obey an order will get you in front of a military court (unless those who review the matter agree it is an unlawful order). This is always a risky situation. Humans are not computers, and have a range of opinions. With respect to constitutional rights, this one of the meanings of "tension" in the law. It is rare for Congress or the courts to take a stand against the government, whatever the details may be of a given situation or action. Consider Executive Order 1066. This detained first and second generation Japanese Americans in most of the Western USA, plus nearly a thousand Aleuts in Alaska (who were NOT considered to be allies of the Japanese). It was TWICE upheld by the US Supreme Court in wartime. It would not be today. Congress formally apologized and paid $20,000 in reparations, decades later in time.

Whatever is written, practice is often somewhat variable, depending critically on the judgement of humans involved in a specific incident.

Not easy to determine the limits.

All legal concepts have limits. A famous court opinion provided the example of "a person yelling fire in a crowded theater" - likely to cause a panic which would result in trampling someone to death. The judge explained this is obviously NOT protected as free speech by the First Amendment. Nor is publishing the technical side of classified information about, say, a nuclear weapon. Such data is also NEVER covered by automatic declassification rules, and remains classified forever. Freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government may have limits as well. General MacArthur confronted the Bonus Army - 43,000 marchers (17,000 WWI veterans and their families and affiliated groups) led by (former) Sgt Walter W Waters in 1932. These soldiers held "bonus certificates" payable in 1945 (with interest), but they wanted immediate payment (because of the Great Depression).

On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

This action was never tested in court, but may or may not have been legal under the First Amendment. I am glad I was not a US Army soldier present, because I might have refused to obey the order - which might have resulted in my being shot - given the temper of the General in question. A judge advocate general training my military police unit handed us a copy of the Bill of Rights. He declared "memorize it - I expect you to honor it - if you don't, I will prosecute you to the full extent of the law." But refusing to obey an order will get you in front of a military court (unless those who review the matter agree it is an unlawful order). This is always a risky situation. Humans are not computers, and have a range of opinions. With respect to constitutional rights, this one of the meanings of "tension" in the law. It is rare for Congress or the courts to take a stand against the government, whatever the details may be of a given situation or action. Consider Executive Order 1066. This detained first and second generation Japanese Americans in most of the Western USA, plus nearly a thousand Aleuts in Alaska (who were NOT considered to be allies of the Japanese). It was TWICE upheld by the US Supreme Court in wartime. It would not be today. Congress formally apologized and paid $20,000 in reparations, decades later in time.

Whatever is written, practice is often somewhat variable, depending critically on the judgement of humans involved in a specific incident.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Tham & readers,

Good question, and I liked the answer you have from Trevethan.

I would follow up with some similar emphasis on court decisions and their relationship to the opening clause of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In many ways this is a paradigmatic model of the American conception of freedom. One recalls the roles of Jefferson and Madison in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Exemption from the military draft has long accommodated pacifist religious denominations.

But there is a long history of court decisions concerned with exactly what is to count as "establishment of religion" and what is to count as "free exercise of religion." The concept of "establishment" has been sometimes narrower sometimes broader in the courts; and not every practice, claimed as religious by some group or other has found its practices protected. For a good hypothetical example, one need only imagine a supposedly religious commitment to human sacrifice. It seems clear that no court in the U.S. would count such a thing as a protected religious practice. We have laws against murder whatever the beliefs involved. But, I suspect that the same might be said of claims for protection of ritual animal sacrifice. There has been much media pressure in recent years aimed against broad construction of protected religious practices--as with avoiding mandated vaccinations and refusal of public service to homosexuals.

One recalls that the Mormons of Utah were forced to renounce polygamy as a condition of Utah coming into the Union. How might that run now, in the face of court rejection of federal marriage legislation? The courts have established living traditions in the interpretation of the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses, with some variability. In degree this has always depended on recognizing the force of actual public mores and sentiment --and the principle of the "consent of the governed." My sense of that matter is that the court traditions of adjudication of religious freedom have been put under considerable stress.

H.G. Callaway

Sorry out of my scope.

I'm not specialized, but I see that: Freedom stands when touching the right of the others, especially if they are a majority.

The internet has exponentially grown in space and time with emerging technological advances in new facets of internet, e.g. the ‘Deep Web’ and the ‘Dark Web’. In the US, Section 230 (CDA) was a knee-jerk reaction of the Congress to counter Stratton Oakmont to provide “Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material to ISPs”. This blanket immunity was disproportionately expanded in Zeran,making Section 230 a ‘judicial oak’ leading to the emergence of an arrogant ISP, oblivious to the dignity of the victims of on-line defamation under the aegis of over-zealous judiciary, overawed  by the tenets of freedom of expression and with  complete disregard to the rights of the victims of online defamation. The judiciary was, thus, rendered non-judicious. On one hand, the existing defamation law in United Kingdom provides a larger ‘umbrella of protection’ for the ISPs, while on the other hand   due regard to the rights of the victims of online defamation is also meted out. However, this ‘umbrella of protection’ is subject to judicial review and principles of common law. It provides not only a ‘safety-valve’ for the victims to vent out their grievances but also equips them with a tool to collect information from the ISPs to build their  arguments in case they have to knock  the door of the courts for justice. The defamation law in UK seems to reflect the ‘societal thinking’ as summarized by Schauer (1980) that “while United States defamation law reflects a society preferring freedom of speech, United Kingdom law demonstrates Britons’ more respect for reputation than freedom of speech”. In the light of the discussions carried out in this article, it can be  concluded that the Defamation Law in accordance with the Common Law of United Kingdom is quite robust and has scope of judicial scrutiny to ensure redressal of grievances. The challenges of transposing UK Law of Defamation to other Common Law Countries need to be explored in future studies.

When a law is stated, it must be stated clearly, with the limits of applicablity also stated.

If no limits of applicablity exist in the law then the interpretation of the law is almost free for judges. Which is the same as no law.

In the case of this amendment:

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 peace peaceably to assemble, or to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Tolerancy does not mean to be silly, or to admit things lousy which can cause a damage to people.

What if a satanic religion want to be established?

What if incitements to hate are in press?

What if press incitements are damaging freedom of people?

etc...

So, please, put limits.

This case, happended in Spain in recent days, has not anything to do with First Amendment. But it is a good example about limits and respect.

A woman commited suicide caused for a forwarding of a sexual video of her between her company workers, probably provided by her couple, who is free of charges by the judge. All the company workers acted with enormous malice mocking her about the video, and finally she commited suicide.

Is the freedom of badness and the freedom of bad behavior legal?. it seems yes because the couple is free of charges. But she is dead.

https://www.elmundo.es/madrid/2019/05/30/5cf018dc21efa0cb308b4648.html

Other case, a woman wanted to commit eutanasia, because she couldn´t stand to have been violated. It is a flagrant lack of respect to life. And a lack of knowledge about forgiveness.

https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-debates-abre-adolescente-holandesa-violada-primo-organiza-suicidio-familia-201906042223_noticia.html

PLEASE, LIMITS.