Speech should be free. As in not restricted by congress. That’s freedom of speech. So no, it’s not “applied to speakers”.
Speech absent a speaker cannot be free, and neither can Congress restrict it or do anything else to it.
Speakers, however, can be free to speak, and Congress could potentially restrict their freedom. It would be a good idea if someone were to come up with some sort of foundational law of the land to prevent Congress from doing that…
Methinks you are being a smidge too literal-minded about the language. Speech automatically implies a speaker, they don’t need to write down that part too.
I don’t view corporations as capable of “speech”. A corporation publishing a film is a legal arrangement, not speech. The government has every right to regulate contracts.
George Orwell is dead. So is Karl Marx. Yet neither “1984” nor “Das Kapital” can be censored by Congress. The “freedom” does not apply to Orwell or Marx. It applies to the speech.
Who or what the speaker is is immaterial to the freedom of the speech.
Does the government have the right to control what gets published in the Chicago Reader since it is corporately owned?
Have you forgotten? You’re arguing that corporations have freedom of speech/press as well. Hence any corporation that wanted to publish 1984 and/or Das Kapital and had the property needed to do so could publish.
Neither George Orwell nor Marx are saying anything at this point, they could not be brought before a court by action of the state. They are neither speaking nor in danger of being restricted.
An example of restrictions on freedom of speech: in Schenck v. U.S., one of the most famous legal phrases regarding freedom of speech was written:
Note how in this phrase, “freedom of speech” applies to protecting a man, not to speech itself. Entities such as people have rights or freedoms, emphemeral sound waves traveling through the atmosphere do not, nor do markings on a page.
Exactly. Thus, the “freedom” in the “freedom of speech” is not applied to the speaker. It is applied to the speech.
Could you provide an example of how you believe the “freedom of speech” does not apply to a speaker?
Pardon me - these are not ephemera. They are not speech rights, they are press rights. They are things that can be produced, by an individual or a corporation.
If freedom of speech and freedom of the press were equivalent freedoms they wouldn’t have to be enumerated separately even within the First Amendment. Let’s stop confusing the two here.
Example: I have a book. The author is dead. Congress cannot make a law that would censor this book or take it away or make it forbidden to own it, or forbid libraries to have it, or book stores. The “speaker” (author of the book) is long dead. So is (for the sake of argument) the publisher. The “freedom” doesn’t apply to them. It applies to the book (speech) pure and simple.
Again, no. If the author is dead publication rights lie with his estate. After enough time has passed the book becomes public domain, which means that anyone with the means to do so (which historically meant ownership of a press, but these days means much less) may publish the work. A law restricting this is a restriction of freedom of the press.
The First Amendment listed several rights and freedoms, and calling all of these freedom of speech is simply incorrect.
I am talking about an existing, old, physical book. Not book yet to be published.
So am I. You are aware books can be published multiple times, right?
The example I gave is about freedom of speech. If that book was being republished, then it would be about freedom of the press.
I would go ahead and disagree with that statement for three reasons.
One, there has been plenty of censorship in the U.S. and a fair amount has been via public libraries and schools acting as government agencies.
Two, let’s say that the copyright has run out on a work and the author is dead and publisher defunct and the government decides to make it illegal to own that book. How is owning that book YOUR freedom of speech? How can anyone in that scenerio declare THEIR freedom of speech is being violated?
Three, national security. Let’s say that owning the Anarchist’s Cookbook is now illegal because of terrorism, 9/11, why do you hate America?, etc. What are the odds you or anyone else will win in court on a 1st Amendment defense? What if the author (and for the Anarchist’s Cookbook this is true) and publisher thinks the book should not in the public? Would the work have a 1st Amendment right that contradicts what the copyright holder(s) think?
“Congress shall make no law”.
The freedom is not yours. The freedom applies to the speech. The speech is free and cannot be restricted. BECAUSE of that your ownership of it cannot be restricted.
If the court was actually following the Constitution, the odds would be 100%
Property rights conflicting with freedom of speech. Property rights win.
Really? Can shopping malls (private property) prevent people from passing out literature on their property?
I think they can (and I definitely think they should be able to) and IIRC they do.
Exactly! I know it is a state law case but the point is made that at least in California, free speech trumps property laws.