• CubitOom@infosec.pubOPEnglish
      5·
      17 days ago

      Idk about that.

      Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. As a general rule, lies are protected, with limited exceptions such as defamation, fraud, false advertising, perjury, and lying under oath during an official government proceeding. Even deliberate lies about the government are fully protected.

      Hate speech is not a general exception to First Amendment protection.[2][3][4][5][6] Per Wisconsin v. Mitchell, hate crime sentence enhancements do not violate First Amendment protections because they do not criminalize speech itself, but rather use speech as evidence of motivation, which is constitutionally permissible.[7]

      Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded to uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

      I guess it depends on how obscenity is defined.

        • Jax@sh.itjust.works
          51·
          17 days ago

          Watts v United States established that you can literally threaten to kill the president and it’s protected by free speech.

            • Jax@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              17 days ago

              The determination is made whether or not the threat can be proven to be true.

              If I say I’m going to kill the president and it’s proven that 1) I’ve taken no actual steps toward a plan and 2) I don’t have the means to do so anyway - the threat is considered ‘untrue’.