but the Supreme Court has already weighed in that Free Speech does not in fact allow EVERYTHING....you can not yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, for example. You can not commit libel or slander.
Inciting a crowd of people to lynch someone will get you put in jail real quick too.
Why we give a by to people just because they have a microphone in front of them I don't know.
(and if any of you think rap music is sexist....listen to country for half an hour!)
Well actually what the Supreme Court determined was that Freedom of speech as outlined in the US Constitution is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. It applies to the Government not to private interests. This is why MSNBC is well within it’s rights to cancel and disassociate from Mr Imus for a history of speech which violates it’s corporate culture.
I think the problem arises when we take too broad an notice of what exactly is freedom of speech and expression, The principle of freedom of speech promotes dialogues on public issues, but it is most relevant to speech which is unpopular at the time it is made. There are several exceptions to this general rule, including copyright protection, the Miller test for obscenity and greater regulation of so-called commercial speech, such as advertising. The Miller test in particular rarely comes into effect.
Within the U.S., the freedom of speech also varies widely from one state to the next. Of all states, the state of California permits its citizens the broadest possible range of free speech under the state constitution (whose declaration of rights includes a strong affirmative right to free speech in addition to a negative right paralleling the federal prohibition on laws that abridge the freedom of speech). More specifically, through the Pruneyard case ruling, California residents may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public.
Historically, local communities and governments have sometimes sought to place limits upon speech that was deemed subversive or unpopular. There was a significant struggle for the right to free speech on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s. And, in the period from 1906 to 1916, the Industrial Workers of the World, a working class union, found it necessary to engage in free speech fights intended to secure the right of union organizers to speak freely to wage workers. These free speech campaigns were sometimes quite successful, although participants often put themselves at great risk.
As for inciting to riot, hate speech and using speech as a means by which great harm may fall other individuals, you are quite right Jess these behaviors and forms of speech are criminal with specific laws in place against them and have no protection under the Constitution. Slander(harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast) laws, commonly called defamation are more tricky, Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries the person being defamed has the burden of proof to show that what was said is indeed not true and never has been true, he or she also has the burden of proof to show that whatever the slander is was not a matter of public record or knowledge and that they were harmed by the publication of it. The slander must have been published publically either spoken in public, printed or broadcast.