Talk:Freedom of speech in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bhurdle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

United States v. The Progressive
This is a fascinating legal case, anyone want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Please leave a note on my user talk page,&mdash;Cirt (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * United States v. The Progressive

Restricted Data
Restricted Data and information about nuclear weapons and the same since any information regarding nuclear weapons must be categorized as Restricted Data. I'd recommend removing the references to Restricted Data from the "Military secrets" section and merging it into the "Nuclear information" sections or eliminate the "Nuclear information" section and merge its contents into the "Military secrets" section.

Also worth clarifying that Restricted Data is not a classification in the strict sense, though Restricted Data is typically classified.

Ref. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Restricted Data page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint discrimination
The term viewpoint discrimination seems to come-up a lot on articles that discuss First Amendment cases that go to the Supreme Court. I've created the page Viewpoint Discrimination as a redirect to the section Types of speech restrictions on this article. It might be good if someone could explain what viewpoint discrimination means. -Joshuagay (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Viewpoint discrimination" is one of the forms of speech regulation that is prohibited to the government. Some reglulation of the time and manner of speech is permitted; for example, State governments may regulate the hours during which protests occur inside a Capitol building, and may require that a group obtain a permit. However, the permitting process may not discriminate between groups of people based on viewpoint--e.g. it is an impermissible requirement for a permit to be conditioned upon the content of the intended speech. This is worthwhile content to add to the article, but needs to be explained more clearly than I have just done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

California public official residence addresses
The California Government Code says:

"6254.21. (a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. (c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or association to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (B) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. (ii) After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, business, or association shall not transfer the appointed or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium. (iii) Clause (ii) shall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate, from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary in the event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate. (E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appointed official may designate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. (d) (1) No person, business, or association shall solicit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appointed official with the intent to cause imminent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official's home address. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone number is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harm to an elected or appointed official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) State constitutional officers. (2) Members of the Legislature. (3) Judges and court commissioners. (4) District attorneys. (5) Public defenders. (6) Members of a city council. (7) Members of a board of supervisors. (8) Appointees of the Governor. (9) Appointees of the Legislature. (10) Mayors. (11) City attorneys. (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs. (13) A public safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24. (14) State administrative law judges. (15) Federal judges and federal defenders. (16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law."

The California Penal Code says:

"146e. (a) Every person who maliciously, and with the intent to obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws, or with the intent or threat to inflict imminent physical harm in retaliation for the due administration of the laws, publishes, disseminates, or otherwise discloses the residence address or telephone number of any peace officer, nonsworn police dispatcher, employee of a city police department or county sheriff's office, or public safety official, or that of the spouse or children of these persons who reside with them, while designating the peace officer, nonsworn police dispatcher, employee of a city police department or county sheriff's office, or public safety official, or relative of these persons as such, without the authorization of the employing agency, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Is there case law on this? What type of limitation on speech or expression is this? Int21h (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Grayned v The City of Rockford 1972
I think Grayned should be included here, as it clarifies the meaning of Time Place and Manner so well. "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9438961868955985513 It seems so helpful a restatement. Especially as the rule is NOT "time place or manner" restriction but a restriction on the manner at a particular place and time( Martin | talk • contribs 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC))

Grayned is referred to in List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 408 ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC))

Bolding fine print about freedom
Should bolding certain data be allowed? Like bolding fine print about freedom of speech? Thank you 74.95.16.5 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Student speech
'Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District' doesn't really belong in the student speech section. It is concerned with allowing use of government property (in this case schools during after hours when students have left) to present material on a non-religious subject from a religious perspective. The student's rights or viewing weren't a part of the controversy or decision. It would have been the same case if it occurred at an overzealous library.

Gsonnenf (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we add the issue of college campuses restricting freedom of speech? Brandon6300 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Other exceptions
Aren't there some other exceptions?


 * Making enemy propaganda in wartime is treason. That's what Ezra Pound could have been convicted of.


 * Conspiracy doesn't seem to require imminent illegal action.


 * In commerce, certain disclosures are required, such as nutritional information on food. &mdash;JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Freedom of speech in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1056

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing
I am going to edit this source to include more information about time, place, and manner restrictions. Taylorwlms (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of speech in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124050702/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Recording strangers in public
This sentence seems a little doubtful to me.

Are there any better sources for this or should it be removed? It cites a blog referencing SCOTUS cases but also a news article about a Dutch court ruling, which I don't believe has ever set precedent in the US. The blog post seems well researched and credible but does concede the point that this issue hasn't actually ever been decided. 2603:3005:702:3B00:20AE:B8B7:5499:B3F9 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * On further reading of the blog page, it seems even less certain. The post highlights that this issue is largely unsettled and has garnered pretty substantially mixed opinions in related circuit cases.2603:3005:702:3B00:20AE:B8B7:5499:B3F9 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Human rights versus First Amendment
Universal human rights says that everyone has freedom of speech at all times and in all places, public or private, government or corporation, online or at work without fear of interference or threats. Apparently this is not acceptable under the First Amendment. However, human rights are broader and should be superior to the First Amendment but are not because they are merely a declaration and not a treaty of binding compliance. Is the conflict between the two a source of unresolved disagreement or is there a future where human rights are incorporated into American constitutional rights? DHT863 (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Freedom of speech under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not absolute. If it were, then it would interfere with other rights, like:
 * "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Art. 5). For example, if police officers had an absolute right to free speech, they could violate this human right by verbally abusing people in custody.
 * "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." (Art. 10) If there was an absolute right to free speech, then witnesses, attorneys, and people representing themselves could lie in court.
 * "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." (Art. 12)
 * "Everyone has the right to freedom of...religion; this right includes freedom...freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
 * "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful ... association." (Art. 20)
 * Near the end of the declaration, it says:
 * "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
 * In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the limitations on the right to free speech are clearer:
 * 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
 * 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
 * (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
 * (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
 * The article could contain a section with information comparing freedom of speech in the United States versus international human rights treaties and with freedom of speech in other countries. AHeneen (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom of speech in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610231310/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21021/Terrorist_Speech_and_the_Future_of_Free_Expresssion.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21021/Terrorist_Speech_and_the_Future_of_Free_Expresssion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Debate
I'd like to add a section about the modern and historical debate on free speech, and how it relates to political ideologies. Benjamin (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

infringements of freedom of speech in USA
To be objective, one should add the cases of violation of freedom of speech in USA. For instance, the case about shutdown Russia Today and USAReally.com (https://riafan.ru/1066521-totalnaya-cenzura-i-zaprety-v-amerike-rukovoditel-usa-really-rasskazal-o-teplom-prieme-v-vashingtone).

Censorship in Facebook https://ria.ru/20190127/1549970274.html

14:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Barinov

Violation of freedom of speech on the West
The article is garbage without showing dozens of real cases of suppression of free speech in USA. https://ruxpert.ru/Свобода_слова_на_Западе‎

This article gathers examples of violations of freedom of speech in the West, such as harassing carriers of an objectionable point of view, repressions and murders of journalists and dissidents, censorship in the media, hindering journalistic activities. As is known, in the course of the information war, Western countries constantly accuse Russia of restricting and violating freedom of speech - the Western media widely exaggerate both real and, for the most part, alleged violations of freedom of speech in Russia. However, this often ignores or ignores the numerous problems with freedom of speech in the West itself.

1.1 Voice of America "will return the tone of propaganda to defend the interests of the United States 1.2 Ofcom freedom of speech regulator 1.3 A White House spokesperson gathers questions before a press conference. 1.4 The US Army Blocks Opposition Sites 1.5 US journalists protest against Obama against media censorship 1.6 “Soft” censorship on the “BBC” 1.7 Vladimir Pozner encountered censorship while working on the American channel CNBC 1.8 German journalist Udo Ulfkott on freedom of speech in Germany 1.9 Inter-American Press Association: Obama continues to harass journalists in the US 1.10 Censorship in the United States set a record for the number of denials of access to official documents 1.11 The EU has created a special group to combat the "Russian propaganda" 1.12 Foreign Policy removed the words about the absence of evidence of the presence of Russia in the Donbas

2.1 Censorship at the request of the UN Cultural Committee 2.2 The silence of the American media problems when the first docking on the ISS 2.3 The American channel NBC did not allow Snowden to criticize US intelligence 2.4 The American television channel NBC otsenzuril interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin 2.5 Hushing up the facts of CNN and ignoring the thousands protest rally 2.6 CNN "cut out" from an interview with a Russian diplomat words about Bashar Assad 2.7 Censorship on the “BBC” because of the “Bukov” 2.8 Bias journalists of the Air Force in covering the issue of the independence of Scotland 2.9 Washington Post devoted only a couple of lines of tragedy in Odessa 2.10 The silence of the New York Times about the bombing of Lugansk 2.11 CNN host: "You can be sure that I will not miss it on the air" 2.12 BBC cut from the English version of the interview with Viktor Yanukovych quote about Crimea 2.13 CBS cuts out unflattering fragments for the USA from Putin’s interview 2.14 Facebook banned from invoking an article on US plans for a nuclear bombardment of the USSR 2.15 German media hush up PEGIDA 2.16 Western media silence the justification by the court of Slobodan Milosevic and the circumstances of his death

3.1 Russian journalists are not allowed to the press conference of Obama and Yatsenyuk 3.2 Journalist revolt in the USA: working conditions are worse than under Bush 3.3 The arrest of journalists for covering the riots in Ferguson (USA) 3.4 8 methods of hiding information by the Obama administration 3.5 Huffington Post censures an “awkward” blog 3.6 Twitter deletes RT's message about sponsors of the British “Troll Factory”

4.1 Posner talks about the dismissals of journalists for criticizing US military actions 4.2 Dismissal of famous American journalist Phil Donahue 4.3 Radio Liberty journalist was removed for the post about the Crimea and fired for publishing the crimes of the Supreme Court of Ukraine 4.4 Dismissing New York Times Editor-in-Chief Jill Abramson 4.5 CNN dismissed the lead for harsh language on radio 4.6 Peter Arnett dismissed for “non-patriotic” 4.7 The journalist was fired from CNN due to sending a tweet expressing her personal opinion from the official CNN account. 4.8 The journalist was fired from NBC because of disrespect for US President Obama

5.1 Death of a Journalist Sandy Hume 5.2 Death of Tony Moser, who specialized in anti-corruption investigations 5.3 The death of reporter Gary Webb 5.4 Death of journalist Andrew Breitbart 5.5 Death of Journalist Michael Hastings 5.6 Death of an eyewitness to events at the WTC-7 building on September 11, 2001 5.7 The death of computer security specialist Barnaby Jack 5.8 The death of the author of the investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 Philip Marshall

6.1 Harassment of anti-war activists from American showbiz 6.2 Canadian athlete had to apologize for the photo with Putin 6.3 Penalty for anti-war comments in Polish media 6.4 US Department of State: Mickey Rourke and Steven Seagal should be more restrained in their speeches 6.5 The world-famous pianist Valentina Lisitsa was kicked out of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra for “under-the-top” 6.6 The dismissal of scientists who revealed the ill effects of shale mining 6.7 Suspension from work for two weeks in the United States of two leading due to obscene expressions to Obama 6.8 Dismissing a Lead in the US Due to the Insult of Obama's Wife 6.9 Dismissing the mayor of an American city because of insulting Obama's wife 6.10 Suppression of Dissent in US Universities 6.11 Harassment of Republican congressmen visiting Russia

7.1 Western Establishments Fight Russia Today 7.2 In London, advertising RT was banned as provocative 7.3 The fight of the Western establishment with the MIA “Russia Today” 7.4 Freedom of speech in Lithuanian 7.5 Freedom of Speech in Latvian 7.6 Freedom of speech in Estonian 7.7 Freedom of speech in Moldavian 7.8 Fighting the US against WikiLeaks 7.9 “Reporters without Borders”: USA in terms of freedom of speech in 46th place 7.10 The Finnish Ministry of Defense got angry at Newsweek

8.1 Replays of the same texts on different TV channels in the USA

9.1 Bribing journalists by the Soros Foundation

10.1 In Britain, a blogger was arrested for 2.5 years and called up a rebellion on Facebook 10.2 In the United States, they demoted the rank of police officer for a T-shirt shot with bullets with a portrait of US President Barack Obama 10.3 In the US, imprisonment for threats and insults to Obama, officials, FBI agents and Muslims 10.4 In the US, Republican Joshua Black resigned from public service for publishing on the Internet a proposal to hang US President Barack Obama

11.1 George Lucas: Soviet directors had more freedom 11.2 The Pentagon censors American movies, TV shows and TV shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.226.60 (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed a garbled reference to the non-existent "Facebook v. Sullivan" from "Internet speech, online forums" section
The section on "Internet speech, online forums" contained the following passage:


 * In Facebook v. Sullivan, a supporter of a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, V.A., ran over and killed a peaceful protester against the rally and later wrote on Facebook about his attack with pride. The social media platform took down his profile and any posts related to this attack that portrayed it in any other way besides tragic. Even though Facebook is not bound by the First Amendment, the platform has regulations of its own based on preserving free expression but also omitting harmful speech.

This raises an issue that's worth discussing in the section. Unfortunately, it contains a grave factual error, a confused discussion of the issue raised and a garbled reference as originally written. The text seems to have been first introduced by User:Bhurdle in April 2020, possibly as part of a classroom project.


 * Factual error. The passage as written appears to refer to a case called "Facebook v. Sullivan," involving Facebook posts about James Alex Field's murder of Heather Heyer in the Charlottesville car attack (August 12, 2017). There is no such case as Facebook v. Sullivan; it does not exist, or if it does I cannot find it by means of any normal case search. (By coincidence, there is a Sullivan v. Facebook (2017), but this is an unrelated pro se complaint filed by a federal prison inmate on an unrelated topic.)


 * Confused discussion. From the reference cited on the paragraph, it appears that the passage has confused the title of a law review article -- Thomas E. Kadri and Kate Klonick, ["Facebook v. Sullivan: Public Figures and Newsworthiness in Online Speech"], Southern California Law Review 93 S. Cal. L. Rev. 37 (2019) -- for the title of a federal court case. The article's title contains an allusion to the case of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), because it deals with Facebook's employment of legal terms and standards developed in the Court's opinion in the Sullivan case and in later rulings drawing on the precedent of Sullivan in order to craft their own privately developed content moderation regulations and procedures. (In particular, their use of "newsworthiness" standards and "public figure" doctrine, which the authors discuss in the context of Facebook's decisions on posts about Heyer, as well as a number of other content moderation decisions by Facebook, including decisions about photographs of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, posts about involuntary Internet celebrities like "Alex from Target" and Justine Sacco, etc. etc. An analytical discussion of Facebook's shifting attitudes towards the legal terms and standards that they sometimes adopted into their own policies are found in Section III of the paper, "Facebook Versus Sullivan: Lessons for Courts and Platforms in the Digital Age" (pp. 70-93).

The issue about the relationship between U.S. free speech law and online platforms is an important one and much discussed, and the law review article does provide a very interesting reference on some of the live issues, so I did not want to simply delete the erroneous passage. I've tried rewriting it in such a way as to foreground the complex relationship of the content moderation issue to free speech legal standards and concepts. Because the reference is actually a law review article and not a single legal case, and because the article touches on multiple incidents besides than the removal of defamatory posts about Heather Heyer, it would be pretty hard to pot all of the concrete examples cited without turning the passage into an unduly weighted discussion of this one specific law review article; so I condensed those specifics out in favor of a more generalized passage about online platforms in general. Here is my first attempt -- the same paragraph in the article now reads:


 * Privately owned social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are not bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which restricts solely the action of government and government agencies. Platforms have developed regulations and procedures of their own, attempting to balance free expression by their users against the moderation or removal of objectionable or harmful speech. In the course of developing private policies and procedures they have in several cases employed concepts or standards developed by U.S. courts in free speech cases, such as the public figure doctrine developed since New York Times v. Sullivan.

This would pretty certainly benefit from some well-sourced discussion about other ways in which the issue has come up for online platforms other than Facebook, the addition of other sources on the issue, etc.

Radgeek (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Publishing national secrets
This article is inaccurate (or at least unclear) when it comes to the matter of publishing national secrets. Essentially, it's illegal to give secret information to the press, but it's not illegal for the press to actually publish that information once they've received it. This came up famously in the Pentagon Papers case. In New York Times Co. v. United States, the court ruled that the New York Times could keep publishing the papers even though they clearly contained state secrets. It was only Ellsberg, the original leaker, who had to face charges. (The charges were then dismissed for other reasons.) This is in contrast to Britain, where (as I understand it) the Official Secrets Act 1989 prohibits media organizations from publishing any secret information they may receive. It's details like this that give the U.S. its reputation for very strong free speech protections. The article should clarify all this.Sonicsuns (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)