top of page

The cases below collectively highlight the balance the courts have tried to strike between protecting freedom of speech and maintaining public order. While the First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, including criticism of police officers, this protection has limits, particularly when it comes to speech that incites immediate violence or constitutes "fighting words." However, laws that broadly criminalize offensive speech are often struck down as overly restrictive of First Amendment rights.

Freedom of  Speech


City of Houston, Texas v. Hill (1987): The Supreme Court struck down a Houston ordinance that made it illegal to interrupt a police officer, ruling that the ordinance was overly broad and violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.


Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974): The Court overturned a city ordinance that criminalized cursing or reviling a police officer, ruling it overly broad and potentially criminalizing speech that is protected under the First Amendment.


Gooding v. Wilson (1972): This case challenged a Georgia statute that criminalized the use of "opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace," which the Supreme Court found to be overly broad and infringing on First Amendment rights.


Cohen v. California (1971): The Supreme Court protected the right of an individual to wear a jacket with an expletive in protest against the Vietnam War, underlining that the government cannot prohibit speech merely because it is offensive.


Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942): This case established the "fighting words" doctrine, identifying some forms of speech, including "fighting words" that incite immediate breach of the peace, as not protected by the First Amendment.


Q: What is considered protected speech for First Amendment auditors?

A: Protected speech includes recording and commentary on matters of public interest, particularly the actions of government officials in public settings.


Q: Can First Amendment auditors legally criticize public officials?

A: Yes, auditors can criticize public officials as long as their statements are not defamatory and do not incite imminent lawless action.


Q: Are there limits to freedom of speech for First Amendment auditors?

A: Yes, limits include speech that incites violence, constitutes a true threat, or is considered defamatory or obscene.


Q: Can auditors use obscenities toward public officials or private citizens?

A: While the use of obscenities by First Amendment auditors toward public officials or private citizens is generally protected under freedom of speech, it is subject to limitations. Speech that constitutes "fighting words" or is likely to provoke immediate violence is not protected.


Q: Can citizens hold signs that contain obscenities?

A: Citizens holding signs with obscenities are generally protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech, especially on public property. However, this right is subject to content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions and may be limited in certain contexts, such as near schools or to maintain public order. The speech must not meet the legal definition of obscenity, which is not protected free speech.


Q: How can First Amendment auditors assert their freedom of speech if challenged by authorities?

A: Auditors can assert their rights by calmly stating their purpose and the legal basis for their actions, without obstructing or hindering the authorities' duties.


Q: What should an auditor do if threatened with arrest for their speech?

A: If threatened with arrest, auditors should calmly explain their actions, comply with police instructions, document the interaction if possible, and seek legal assistance afterward.


Q: Is loud or disruptive speech by First Amendment auditors protected?

A: Speech may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, especially if it disrupts peace or public order.


Q: Can auditors legally protest in public spaces without a permit?

A: Generally, yes, unless the protest obstructs traffic, creates a safety hazard, or exceeds certain size regulations that may require a permit.


Q: Do First Amendment auditors have the right to verbally challenge or question police actions?

A: Yes, auditors can question police actions, but must do so in a way that does not interfere with police operations.


Q: Are auditors protected under freedom of speech when recording private individuals without consent?

A: Recording in public spaces is generally permissible, but recording private conversations without consent may violate wiretapping laws in some states.


Q: Can auditors be sued for what they say or write?

A: Yes, if an auditor makes false statements that damage someone's reputation, they could be subject to a defamation lawsuit.


Q: Does freedom of speech cover the distribution of leaflets or other printed materials?

A: Yes, distributing leaflets, pamphlets, or other materials in public spaces is protected under freedom of speech.


Q: Can auditors use amplification devices, like bullhorns, during their activities?

A: Use of such devices may be regulated by local ordinances, and auditors may need a permit to avoid violating noise regulations.


Q: What recourse do auditors have if their freedom of speech is violated?

A: Auditors can file a complaint with civil rights organizations, seek redress through civil litigation, or report violations to oversight bodies.


Q: How does freedom of speech protect online content created by First Amendment auditors?

A: Online content, such as blogs, videos, and social media posts, is protected under freedom of speech, subject to the same limitations as offline speech.


Q: Are First Amendment auditors allowed to film and speak on private property?

A: Property owners can set rules on private property; if auditors are asked to leave and refuse, they may be trespassing.


Q: Are there any federal laws that protect my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press?

A: Yes, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 criminalizes the willful deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution by anyone acting under color of law. It is aimed at preventing misconduct by government officials, including law enforcement, and allows for the punishment of such officials if they intentionally violate a person's civil rights.


Disclaimer: The information provided in these FAQs is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult a licensed attorney.

bottom of page