Throughout history, many cases have tested the boundaries of free speech and press, but those rights have beenconsistently protected and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. The First Amendment prohibits the state andfederal government from restricting speech based on content or by imposing prior restraints on speech.Most forms of speech are protected by the First Amendment, but there are exceptions for speech that does notadd to public debate or may cause harm. Those exceptions include obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot,fighting words, harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents,military conduct, and commercial speech, such as advertising.In addition, speech that is part of an act the law traditionally considers criminal is not protected by the FirstAmendment. For example, publishers cannot distribute magazines containing child pornography since themanufacturing, distribution, and possession of child pornography is illegal. In that case, protecting childrenfrom exploitation is deemed to be more important than any message provided in the magazine.Defamation, or speech that contains false and derogatory statements that injure someone’s reputation, also failsto receive the same protection as other forms of speech. Defamation can occur through spoken word (slander)or written communication (libel). The issue of whether public figures may sue for defamation has been debatedbefore the Supreme Court. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the police commissioner of Montgomery,Alabama, sued the New York Times for running an advertisement that alleged police brutality in Montgomery.Although the advertisement was false in only a few respects and the publisher printed it without knowledgeof the misstatements, it was considered defamatory under Alabama law. However, the U.S. Supreme Courtdeemed the state law unconstitutional. Justice William Brennan wrote that there is a “central meaning of theFirst Amendment” that includes “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issuesshould be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimesunpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” As a result, a statement about a public official isconstitutionally protected unless the official can prove that it is false and was made with “actual malice” or with“knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”The government may limit speech based on its content only when it has a compelling interest, such as whenthe speech presents a clear danger to public safety. This is a difficult standard for the government to meet. InNew York Times Co. v. United States (1971), Daniel Ellsberg, a former national security employee, intended tointerfere with the Vietnam War by releasing to the New York Times information critical of government policy.The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the right of the New York Times to print thematerials. The Court found that the government had not set forth compelling evidence of a danger to thepublic.A regulation that limits the time, place, and manner of speech, but not the message a speaker intends to convey,also may be allowed in some circumstances. For example, in Frisby v. Schultz, the Brookfield Town Board passeda law prohibiting any person from picketing “before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual”within the town. The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding that protecting privacy in residential home
