Such clauses are basically impossible to enforce in the US. It's called 'Prior Restraint' and courts look extremely poorly on it. You can forbid people from lots of things, but forbidding them from saying certain things? You can do that if you are the government yourself... and basically no one else.
Do you have a reference for this? There is apparently case law from the 1970s' where SCOTUS ruled that the government cannot compel someone to speak against their wishes.
A large difference between the US and many jurisdictions is the extreme aversion to prior restraint.
In the US it's perfectly possible to go after someone for publishing/saying something, if in doing so they violated a law (for example, if they deliberately falsely described someone as a criminal), and recover damages and possibly an injunction against them preventing further harm to you.
However, it is designed to be as difficult as humanly possible -- verging on impossible -- to prevent someone from speaking/publishing in the first place. Ordering something never to be said or published at all (rather than allowing damages to be recovered after the fact) is prior restraint, and the US legal system is incredibly hostile to that.
So although there are times when it's permitted in the US, they're rare and the standard which must be cleared is very high. Which in turn leads to people from the US being surprised at the (from our perspective) seemingly casual way that prior restraints on speech are handed out in other countries.
The argument goes that the government might be able to compel you not to speak, but they cannot compel you to speak against your wishes (and, in particular, to lie).
The precedent supports that to some degree, but it's really not clear.
In the US, there is no prior restraint that prevents one from doing the things in your list.
If expressions are deemed unlawful after-the-fact and via due process, the speaker may be punished.
It is anti-freedom to bar expression w/o adjudication or due process. E.g., alleged threats or alleged defamation are protected speech until a court determines them to be unprotected. Emergency injunctions or the like may be temporarily enforced if the court feels it is likely that the expression in controversy will be found to be unprotected speech.
Also, courts can issue narrow and temporary gag orders but they are limited and specifically targeted for reasons unrelated to the viewpoint of the speech.
That seems far-fetched, at best. Freedom of speech guarantees your right to say that you want this, but does not force anyone to actually comply with it. Especially if it requires breaking a law.
Good grief. It's the first sentence in the Bill of Rights, not merely a "clause in a law". And I don't know the specifics to which you are referring, but the UK does not have such a guarantee of speech rights. There are occasional flame wars to that effect in our share social circle.
So no: there is no way in hell that any US court will order an extradition for a prosecution of a pure act of speech. They occasionally break that rule internally, of course. But no way would any politician allow a foreign court to do it.
I'm not sure we have decent case law for the situation we're in now... the speech of Americans is largely controlled by a few entities that have the power to silence your speech almost completely, at least in the ways that speech is used today.
The gov cannot directly limit speech except in certain, very limited, cases. Instead they get corporations to do it for them. Which is currently very legal.
I think the current US law is that lawmen can try to compel you to not discuss a subject, and try to jail you if you do, however, they cannot try to tell you to speak falsehoods about a subject.
US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. For example, gag orders during court proceedings are temporary limitations on speech meant to ensure a fair trial.
And obviously, any speech that is intrinsically part of another crime would be punishable (e.g. telling somebody you're from the IRS so you could steal their return).
Even in these cases, 1A does not allow the government to prevent such speech (that is, prior restraint). These are not criminal issues. If you engage in any of these practices you may be liable for civil judgments, but that's the extent of it.
It's true that there are limitations on 1A. But these are very frequently misunderstood. For example, the bit about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is incorrect.
But it is, assuming you are in the US. That is how the legal framework is laid out. It is extremely difficult and near impossible to restrict speech in public forms.
reply