Join NCAC Now

» art» media» literature» science» internet» education» entertainment

EXPRESS YOURSELF!

 in support of free expression



NCAC File Room


The information presented here by the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety, provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.

©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design

free speech first amendment censorship

  

Content/Viewpoint Neutrality
The central tenet of the First Amendment is that ideas may not be suppressed because they are unpopular, offensive, or even hateful. Government actions restricting or penalizing certain kinds of speech because of hostility to the ideas expressed are considered to constitute viewpoint-discrimination and are generally impermissible. For example, a public museum may not exclude art because of concern that it might offend some viewers’ religious beliefs.

While the terms are sometimes confused, viewpoint discrimination should be distinguished from content discrimination, which categorizes types of expression and does not restrict speech based on the message conveyed. For example, a decision to display only abstract art is content-based, but would be permissible under the First Amendment absent evidence of an intent to suppress specific ideas. Courts examine content-based restrictions closely, however, as they often serve as a pretext for viewpoint-based restrictions.

Content-neutral regulations often seek to regulate conduct, and restrict speech incidentally. An example would be a regulation against littering that may incidentally burden leafleting, which is protected speech. In such cases, the regulation would likely be upheld if it furthers an important or substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and adequate alternative channels of communication exist .

Associated Cases:
Bullfrog Films v. Wick
Burke v. City of Charleston
Celli v. City of St. Augustine
Cernuda v. Heavey
Cuban Museum of Arts and Culture, Inc. v. City of Miami
Henderson v. City of Murfreesboro
Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Reno v. ACLU
Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra
Sefick v. Gardner
Tacynec v. City of Philadelphia
These materials are not intended, and should not be used, as legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances. Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations. Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome. Please send to ncac@ncac.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Action Alerts

» National

» Eastern

» Central

» Mountain

» Pacific


» email alert sign-up


» report censorship!

 

275 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 » Phone (212) 807-6222 Fax (212) 807-6245 » ncac@ncac.org