{"id":34014,"date":"2023-08-13T09:35:44","date_gmt":"2023-08-13T13:35:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/coatesvilletimes.com\/?p=34014"},"modified":"2023-08-13T09:35:45","modified_gmt":"2023-08-13T13:35:45","slug":"free-speech-has-limits-even-for-trump","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/coatesvilletimes.com\/?p=34014","title":{"rendered":"Free speech has limits…even for Trump"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Rich Heiland<\/b>, <\/b>Columnist, The Times<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"GIVEN THAT EVERYONE <\/strong>a keyboard has weighed in on some aspect of the most recent Trump indictment, why not an old guy in West Chester? Not that I know as much as the national pundits and not that a whole lot of folks sit waiting for my latest posting. But, after a life in journalism, sitting down and letting thoughts flow is kind of how I kill time.<\/p>\n

There is, though, one area I am pretty familiar with and that\u2019s \u201cfree speech.\u201d As a journalist, and editor and newspaper CEO, I spent a lot of time immersed in free speech. I\u2019ve also taught, as a part of a college level journalism course, libel and slander.<\/p>\n

Given that Trump is saying that everything he ever has done can be defended by invoking \u201cfree speech,\u201d and that Special Counsel Jack Smith\u2019s indictment is, pure and simple, an attempt to stifle The Donald\u2019s speech, I offer some thoughts.<\/p>\n

First, is there such a thing as \u201cfree speech?\u201d Well, yes. But only in the context of the U.S. Constitution and even that speech has, over the years, had some limits imposed on it at both the Federal and State levels.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s begin with the First Amendment to the Constitution:<\/p>\n

\u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The First Amendment, echoed by most state constitutions, says \u201cCongress\u201d shall not abridge freedom of speech, or of the press. Period. That amendment was created in large part because a lack of freedom of speech, both oral and in print, was something very real to the Founders.<\/p>\n

But our \u201cright\u201d to free speech is a right when it comes only to government restrictions. Beyond that, we have no right to it. Your company puts out directives limiting what you, as an employee, can say publicly. An infringement? No. So long as restrictions do not violate established laws or case law interpretations of those laws, then it is not an infringement.<\/p>\n

Our U.S. case law is filled with evolutionary rulings that limit speech, even when it might appear to be protected by the First Amendment. For example, there is the old \u201cyou can\u2019t yell \u2018fire\u2019 in a crowded\u201d theater adage. Even this is not a denial of free speech per se. What it means is that if people are injured by your yelling of \u201cfire\u201d then there could be civil, or even criminal, liability for you.<\/p>\n

There also is the area of \u201cdefamation law.\u201d Using language to defame a person or organization may not be covered by any First Amendment protections.<\/p>\n

Defamation is not a criminal offense; hence case law comes from the civil side. You or I can file a defamation suit if we feel our reputation, our ability to earn a living or to function in society have been harmed by someone\u2019s defamatory statements.<\/p>\n

Defamation comes in two forms \u2013 written, which is libel, and spoken, which is slander. \u00a0civil lawsuit against someone if they suffer injury because of that person’s defamatory statements.<\/p>\n

As a journalist I was always aware of libel and slander laws. If someone were to sue me for libel or slander as a journalist and be successful, they have to prove:<\/p>\n