Final answer:
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that pure speech is protected by the First Amendment, but there are limitations and exceptions to this protection. Speech that incites imminent lawless action or poses a clear and present danger can be restricted. Certain categories of speech, such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words, can also be limited.
Step-by-step explanation:
The U.S. Supreme Court has established several rules regarding pure speech. The Court has ruled that pure speech, which includes written or spoken communication, is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, there are certain exceptions and limitations to this protection. The Court has stated that speech or expression that incites imminent lawless action or poses a clear and present danger can be restricted.
For example, if someone falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater and causes a panic, this speech is not protected. Additionally, speech that falls under categories such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words can also be limited. While speech related to the political overthrow of the government may be protected if it does not directly promote or lead to a conspiracy or actual effort to overthrow the government, abstract discussions of this topic are generally protected.
The U.S. Supreme Court protects pure speech, particularly political, unless it incites imminent lawless action. Symbolic speech enjoys similar protections, with limits on defamation, obscenity, and genuine threats. Context and content-neutrality are critical for speech limitations.
U.S. Supreme Court's Rule on Pure Speech
In general, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized the protection of pure speech, especially when it pertains to political expression. The Supreme Court's rulings have established that pure speech is protected by the First Amendment unless it constitutes a direct call to imminent lawless action, as established by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Speech that merely advocates for unpopular ideas or discusses controversial topics without inciting immediate illegal acts is generally protected. Furthermore, certain forms of symbolic speech, such as wearing political symbols or flag desecration, have been subject to similar constitutional protections. However, there are clear exceptions where speech might be limited, such as incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation (libel or slander), obscenity, "fighting words," and genuine threats.
Regarding the protection of political speech, the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan set a higher standard for public officials to claim defamation. Moreover, the Supreme Court applies specific and strict standards which must be met before speech or expression can be constitutionally limited. These include content neutrality in laws limiting speech and the consideration of the speech's context, as in the famous example of not falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
The Court has also recognized that in places like public forums, there is almost blanket protection for free speech, but in settings such as public schools or courts, speech can be reasonably restricted. Additionally, in cases dealing with subversive speech, speech that is abstractly about the overthrow of the government is protected, but not if it advocates for specific actions to accomplish an overthrow.