Freedom of Speech and its limits

Recently some internet sites have been pumping out news and opinions reporting the reaction to Goodreads cracking down on those few who victimized authors with the goal of destroying reputations and careers in publishing. Some of the comments in this debate are angry; some are celebrating, and some are waiting to see if these changes are real.

I’m not going to go into detail about this issue. Instead, I want to look closely at freedom of speech and its limitations.

Do sites such as Goodreads and Amazon have a right to define limits to freedom of expression on their private sector internet sites? The answer is yes as you will discover.


The Limitations of Free Speech

If you read the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution carefully [it is short and to the point], you will discover that it was clearly meant to protect the opinions of American citizens from government harassment and persecution and in no way does freedom of speech mean you can say or write anything you want anywhere at any time without fear of censorship.

For example, Censorship in America.com says, “For much of the nation’s history, the First Amendment was not held to apply to states and municipalities.  Entities without any prohibition in their own charters [in the private sector these charters are known as terms of use] were free to censor newspaper, magazines books, plays, movies, comedy shows and so on. Many did, as exemplified by the phrase banned in Boston.”

It wasn’t until the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren [he served as Chief Justice 1953 – 1969] that the 1st Amendment was extended to local government—with no mention that freedom of expression in the private sector was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Shaw Valenza.com says, “Federal free speech protections apply only to the government. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, for example, does not regulate private employers.”

North Iowa Today.com says, “A private-sector employer has a lot of latitude as to what’s permitted or not with respect to political speech, or pushing any view for that matter.”


The Consensus of the Public

In conclusion, “The [U.S. Supreme] Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech. … Furthermore, even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the basis of its content if the restriction passes strict scrutiny.”

Even international law says, “Freedomofexpression is not absolute and every system of law provides for some limitations on it: For respect of the rights or reputations of others; for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. This means that it is permissible to think the most evil and depraved thoughts, although giving expression to them may legitimately warrant a sanction.” Source: Centre for Law and Democracy

For sites such as Goodreads and Amazon, those restrictions are spelled out in their Terms of Use Agreements and these private sector businesses reserve the right to change the Terms of Use at any time.

Goodreads concludes its Terms of Use with “IMPORTANT: These Terms & Conditions of Service for Goodreads Services (“Agreement”) is a legal agreement between you and Goodreads Inc. By using or accepting the Services, you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. If you do not agree to the Terms of this Agreement, do not use these Services. You agree that your use of the services acknowledges that you have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its Terms and Conditions.” For more details about the Goodreads Terms of Use, I suggest you click on the link and read them.

And if you go to Amazon’s Terms of Use, and you will discover, “Visitors may post reviews, comments and other content; and submit suggestions, ideas, comments, questions, or other information, so long as the content is not illegal, obscene, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, infringing of intellectual property rights, or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable and does not consist of or contain software viruses, political campaigning, commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings, or any form of ‘spam.’ You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead as to the origin of a card or other content. AWS reserves the right (but not the obligation) to remove or edit such content, but does not regularly review posted content.”

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse is a former U.S. Marine, Vietnam Veteran and English-journalism teacher.

His latest novel is the award winning Running with the Enemy that started life as a memoir and then became a fictional suspense thriller. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

33 responses to “Freedom of Speech and its limits”

  1. Lloyd Lofthouse, here is a video I would like to get your perspective on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRnoSL3girI I get the fact that money and speech are 2 separate things in entirety. What is interesting to me is the double-standard when some people try to argue that money is speech in one regard and not another. To put it simply, here are my thoughts: Either spending money should legally be seen as an expression of speech, regardless of the transaction or not.

    1. It has never occurred to me that money and freedom of speech is the same.

      I watched the video and I don’t think money is the same as freedom of speech as defined in the U.S. Constitution, but money, legally or illegally, is used as a weapon to buy influence.

      Since freedom of speech as defined in the U.S. Constitution and by the courts that have defined what “it” means in the U.S., the only thing lots of money does is allow wealthier people to trample the limitations of freedom of speech that most of us in the working class would never get away with.

      When Trump incited the January 6 attack on our Congress and Vice President at a “hate my enemies (anyone that doesn’t do what I want) and worship Trump” rally earlier that same day, Trump broke the law that limits freedom of speech in this country, but no matter how much Trump inflates his wealth, he still has more money than most of us have ever had. I think that’s why Trump isn’t in jail right now like hundreds of the working class MAGA freaks that stormed OUR capital on January 6th.

      “Freedom of speech does not include the right:

      “To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
      Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

      To make or distribute obscene materials.
      Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

      To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
      United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

      To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
      Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

      Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
      Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

      Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
      Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).”

      https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

      1. Lloyd Lofthouse, the sources that talk about the alleged lies among those on the Right are the true liars. They spin things to fit their delusions and grandeur.

      2. I disagree. While there are people on the left, in the middle, and on the right that lie, the biggest liars of them all at this time in OUR country’s history are those that keep repeating and supporting Trump’s big lie that he won the 2020 election and the other side lost. That is not an alleged lie. Trump’s big lie has been proven to be a lie repeatedly in the courts, even from conservative judges Trump appointed. Jim Jones is a repeat offender when it comes to spreading lies. Limbaugh is dead but he spread lies for most of his life. Hannity is another repeated liar.

        Alleging that the “true liars” are those that point out the lies on the right is flawed logic and anyone that beliefs that have burnt scrambled cheese and eggs for brains.

        At the same time, I think labeling Trump’s and his delusional, autocratic-loving supporters as members of the “right” is misleading. They aren’t conservatives in the traditional sense. They are fringe extremists that have been brainwashed by Fox News and other fake media that spreads conspiracy theories based on not a shred of reputable evidence.

      3. Lloyd Lofthouse, we must live in different realities. The Left-wing media are the biggest liars.

  2. […] Freedom of Speech and its limits (lloydlofthouse.org) […]

  3. I’ve been so harrassed after posting a review on Amazon that I took it down. Eventually Amazon banned the guys, but by then then damage was done.

  4. Excellent, detailed post, Lloyd. Most people (or trolls) who were born just yesterday are not aware of any of this. Might be why they think they have the right to spread “whatever…” Uninformed is… another word for ignorant. I’ve posted a link back and tweeted this out.

    1. Thank you. As you said, born yesterday. I ran into this same attitude in the classroom when I was still teaching. Every year there were kids who felt they could say anything they wanted because of their misconceptions about freedom of speech. The word freedom has been misused in the United States.

      Freedom doesn’t mean you can say or do anything you want but some people believe it does mean that. Maybe that’s why the United States has more people in prison than any other country in the world. Because there are too many people born yesterday who just don’t get it.

      There’s an old saying that ignorance is bliss but I think that’s wrong. I think acting or speaking out of ignorance leads to embarrassment and an emotional roller coaster when someone wakes up and realizes they have been acting like a fool.

      But then some of those same people will refuse to wake up and accept the facts as they are, and they will live in denial and sometimes end up on street corners ranting about the end of the world.

Comments are welcome — pro or con. However, comments must focus on the topic of the post, be civil and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.