First Amendment Freedoms

Why This Matters

The First Amendment isn't just one right—it's a cluster of interconnected freedoms that form the backbone of constitutional liberty. When you're tested on these concepts, you're being asked to demonstrate mastery of how courts balance individual expression against government interests, and why certain speech receives more protection than others. The doctrines here—strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, content-neutrality, prior restraint—appear throughout constitutional law, making this unit foundational for everything that follows.

Don't just memorize that "speech is protected" or "obscenity isn't." You need to understand which test applies when, how the level of scrutiny shifts based on the type of regulation, and why the Court treats a flag-burning protester differently from a cigarette advertisement. Every item below illustrates a specific principle about when government can regulate expression and what justification it needs. Know the concept each freedom or doctrine demonstrates, and you'll be ready for any FRQ the exam throws at you.

---

The Religion Clauses: Separation and Free Exercise

The First Amendment addresses religion through two distinct but related clauses. The tension between preventing government establishment of religion and protecting individuals' free exercise creates some of the most nuanced constitutional questions you'll encounter.

Establishment Clause

• Prohibits government sponsorship of religion—the state cannot establish an official religion, prefer one faith over others, or prefer religion over non-religion
• Lemon Test traditionally governed analysis: the law must have a secular purpose, cannot advance or inhibit religion, and must avoid excessive entanglement with religion
• Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022) shifted analysis toward history and tradition, signaling the Court's move away from strict Lemon Test application

Free Exercise Clause

• Protects religious practice, not just belief—individuals can worship, observe rituals, and live according to their faith without government interference
• Employment Division v. Smith (1990) held that neutral, generally applicable laws don't require religious exemptions, even if they burden religious practice
• Strict scrutiny applies when laws specifically target religious conduct or aren't neutrally applied—government must show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring

---

Speech Protection: The Core Doctrine

The speech and press clauses protect expression from government interference, but protection isn't absolute. Courts have developed categorical approaches and tiered scrutiny to determine when regulation is permissible.

Freedom of Speech

• Covers spoken, written, and symbolic expression—the government generally cannot punish you for the content of your message or compel you to speak
• Unprotected categories include incitement to imminent lawless action (Brandenburg test), true threats, fighting words, and obscenity
• Viewpoint discrimination is virtually never permitted—government cannot favor one side of a debate over another, regardless of the forum

Freedom of the Press

• Extends speech protections to publication and broadcasting—essential for the informed citizenry democracy requires
• No special press privileges beyond general speech rights; journalists can be compelled to testify and don't have absolute source protection
• Defamation liability provides post-publication accountability—the press isn't immune from consequences for false, harmful statements

Symbolic Speech

• Nonverbal conduct that communicates a message receives First Amendment protection—flag burning, armband wearing, silent protests
• O'Brien test applies: government can regulate if the restriction is unrelated to suppressing the message and burdens no more speech than necessary
• Texas v. Johnson (1989) confirmed flag burning as protected expression—the government cannot prohibit expression simply because society finds the idea offensive

---

Levels of Protection: Not All Speech Is Equal

Different categories of speech receive different levels of constitutional protection. This tiered approach reflects the Court's judgment about which speech most serves First Amendment values.

Commercial Speech

• Advertising and business promotion receive intermediate protection—more than unprotected speech, less than political speech
• Central Hudson test requires the speech be lawful and not misleading, the government interest be substantial, and the regulation directly advance that interest without being more extensive than necessary
• Truthfulness requirement distinguishes commercial speech—government can prohibit false or deceptive advertising in ways it cannot regulate political lies

Hate Speech

• Generally protected unless it crosses into unprotected categories like incitement, true threats, or fighting words
• R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) struck down a hate speech ordinance as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination—even within unprotected categories, government cannot single out disfavored messages
• No "hate speech exception" exists in American law, unlike many other democracies—this is a frequently tested distinction

Obscenity and Indecency

• Obscenity is unprotected speech—the Miller Test requires the work appeal to prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (SLAPS)
• Indecency is protected but regulable in broadcast media during hours when children may be listening—FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)
• Community standards apply to the first two Miller prongs, making obscenity determinations inherently local and variable

---

Government Regulation: The Framework for Restrictions

When government does regulate speech, courts apply different levels of scrutiny depending on what is being regulated and how. These frameworks appear constantly on exams.

Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Regulations

• Content-based laws restrict speech because of its message or subject matter and trigger strict scrutiny—government must prove a compelling interest and narrow tailoring
• Content-neutral laws regulate speech without regard to message and receive intermediate scrutiny—government needs a significant interest and must leave open alternative channels of communication
• Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) broadly defined content-based regulation—if you must read the sign to know if the law applies, it's content-based

Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions

• Content-neutral regulations on when, where, and how speech occurs are permissible in public forums if they serve a significant government interest
• Must leave open ample alternative channels—government can say "not here, not now" but cannot effectively silence the message entirely
• Cannot be pretextual—if the real purpose is suppressing a viewpoint, courts will strike down the regulation regardless of its facial neutrality

Prior Restraint

• Government prevention of speech before publication is the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights—Near v. Minnesota (1931)
• Heavy presumption against validity—prior restraints bear a "heavy presumption" of unconstitutionality; government almost never wins these cases
• Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. United States, 1971) rejected prior restraint even for classified national security documents—courts prefer post-publication remedies like criminal prosecution

---

Assembly, Petition, and Collective Action

The First Amendment protects not just individual expression but collective action—the rights to gather, protest, and demand government accountability.

Freedom of Assembly

• Protects peaceful gathering for protests, demonstrations, marches, and meetings—essential for collective expression and political organizing
• Public forum doctrine governs where assembly rights are strongest: traditional public forums (streets, parks) receive the most protection
• Reasonable regulations on time, place, and manner are permissible, but government cannot use permit requirements to suppress disfavored viewpoints

Freedom of Petition

• Right to seek government redress includes lobbying, filing lawsuits, writing to representatives, and organizing campaigns for policy change
• Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects petitioning activity from antitrust liability—citizens can collectively lobby government even if it would otherwise restrain trade
• Essential for accountability—without petition rights, other First Amendment freedoms would lack mechanisms for translating expression into political action

---

Defamation: Where Speech Rights Meet Reputation

Defamation doctrine represents a constitutional balance between free expression and protecting individuals from reputational harm caused by false statements.

Defamation and Libel

• False statements of fact that harm reputation can give rise to civil liability—New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) constitutionalized this area
• Public figures must prove actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—while private figures need only show negligence
• Libel refers to written defamation; slander to spoken—but the constitutional standards apply to both, with the plaintiff's status determining the burden of proof

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. A city ordinance prohibits all signs larger than six square feet within 500 feet of intersections, citing traffic safety. Is this content-based or content-neutral, and what level of scrutiny applies?

2. Compare the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause: How might a single government action—like funding religious schools—implicate both clauses in opposite ways?

3. Which two categories of speech—commercial speech and hate speech—receive different levels of protection, and what justifies treating them differently under First Amendment doctrine?

4. A newspaper publishes a false story claiming a local business owner committed fraud. What must the business owner prove to win a defamation suit, and how would the analysis change if the plaintiff were a U.S. Senator?

5. Contrast prior restraint with subsequent punishment: Why does the Court treat an injunction preventing publication more harshly than a criminal prosecution after publication, even if both ultimately restrict the same speech?