Difference between revisions of "Government speech"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*"We must decide whether that rejection [of a Confederate flag license plate] violated the Constitution’s free speech guarantees. See Amdts. 1, 14. We conclude that it did not." ''Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.'', 576 U.S. 200, 203-04 (2015) | *"We must decide whether that rejection [of a Confederate flag license plate] violated the Constitution’s free speech guarantees. See Amdts. 1, 14. We conclude that it did not." ''Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.'', 576 U.S. 200, 203-04 (2015) | ||
| − | Stated another way, the purposeful communication of the speaker’s own message generally qualifies as “speech.” ''Shurtleff v. City of | + | Stated another way, the purposeful communication of the speaker’s own message generally qualifies as “speech.” ''Shurtleff v. City of Boston'', 596 U.S. 243, 267 (2022). |
== Counterexample == | == Counterexample == | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{cquote|The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application based on a provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” 15 U.S.C. §1052(a). We now hold that [1] this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.}} | {{cquote|The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application based on a provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” 15 U.S.C. §1052(a). We now hold that [1] this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.}} | ||
''Matal v. Tam'', 582 U.S. 218, 223 (2017). | ''Matal v. Tam'', 582 U.S. 218, 223 (2017). | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Case law == | ||
| + | |||
| + | As of August 12, 2024, a total of 937 federal decisions (including 32 by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]). The most prominent and recent precedent is ''Shurtleff v. City of Boston'', 596 U.S. 243 (2022), quoted above. | ||
| + | |||
[[category:First Amendment]] | [[category:First Amendment]] | ||
Revision as of 05:07, August 13, 2024
Government speech is “speech” -- expressive activity that is “intended to be communicative” -- which is spoken by the government.
Examples include:
- accepting monuments for placement in a city park, which “constitute[d] government speech” because the monuments were “meant to convey and have the effect of conveying a government message.” Summum, 555 U. S., at 472;
- "We must decide whether that rejection [of a Confederate flag license plate] violated the Constitution’s free speech guarantees. See Amdts. 1, 14. We conclude that it did not." Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 203-04 (2015)
Stated another way, the purposeful communication of the speaker’s own message generally qualifies as “speech.” Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. 243, 267 (2022).
Counterexample
Trademarks are not government speech:
| “ | The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application based on a provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” 15 U.S.C. §1052(a). We now hold that [1] this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend. | ” |
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218, 223 (2017).
Case law
As of August 12, 2024, a total of 937 federal decisions (including 32 by the U.S. Supreme Court). The most prominent and recent precedent is Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. 243 (2022), quoted above.