A citizen cannot encroach upon another citizen's right to express their opinions freely.
In a recent Twitter exchange, Andrew Seidel, a renowned Constitutional attorney specializing in the First Amendment, responded to a comment with his bio and current work. The conversation revolved around the First Amendment, a fundamental aspect of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the right to free speech.
The First Amendment protects free speech from government restriction or interference, but it does not regulate interactions between private citizens or private entities. This means the government generally cannot censor or punish speech based on its content or viewpoint, with some carefully defined exceptions like incitement to imminent lawless action or fighting words. However, the First Amendment does not guarantee protection against speech limits or consequences imposed by other private individuals or organizations.
Essential context includes the government speech doctrine, which clarifies that while the government cannot control private speech based on viewpoint, it may promote its own messages without viewpoint neutrality. Cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established that speech can only be restricted when it is aimed at producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce it, illustrating limits on government power to restrict speech.
In contrast, the First Amendment does not prevent private citizens from responding to speech with criticism, counterspeech, or social consequences, nor does it prevent private organizations from setting speech rules within their own domains. Therefore, the legal interpretation is that the First Amendment is a protection against government censorship or penalties, not protection from private individuals suppressing or responding to speech. Legal restrictions on speech apply only when imposed by the government, not by other citizens or private entities.
The Twitter exchange between Seidel and Trump/supporters made an important point about the First Amendment. Seidel identified himself as a Constitutional attorney who specializes in the First Amendment, and when asked for his qualifications, he responded by providing his bio and current work. The conversation underscored the importance of understanding the First Amendment's role in protecting citizens from infringement by the government, not from other people.
The First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship or penalties, but it does not prevent private individuals from responding to speech with criticism, counterspeech, or social consequences. In contrast, private organizations are allowed to set speech rules within their own domains.
