What does this mean?

Question

The protections afforded by the First Amendment "are not absolute"

What did former Justice Sandra Day oconor mean by saying theat First Amendment protections are not absolute?

Answer 1

She is saying there are exceptions.

The most often quoted exception to the First Amendment has to do with free speech. The quote states that it is not legal to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

There would be other exceptions if you tried to do something otherwise illegal during freedom of assemby, such as inciting a riot, or if you performed an illegal act as part of a religious ceremony under freedom of religion.

Answer 2

She meant - and she was right - that not ALL speech is entitled to 1st Amendment protection. SOME speech can be banned.

The most famous phrase is the one about "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". In "Schenck vs US" Schenck was prosecuted for distributing anti-draft pamphlets during World War One.

Writing a unanimous decision upholding his conviction, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote;
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Most jurists believed that "Schenck" went far too far, and that Schenck's anti-draft pamphlets were in fact a perfectly legitimate political dissent that did in fact deserve first Amendment protection. They weren't surprised then when the Supreme court reversed itself in 1969 in "Brandenburg vs Ohio" and changed the rule to say that speech only lacked 1st Amendment protection when it clearly incited illegal activity. Brandenburg was a KKK leader who advocated violent opposition to desegregation, and the court ruled that an "abstract advocacy" of violent opposition to government policy wasn't enough of a "clear and imminent danger" to justify silencing him.

Richard

Answer 3

to me it means there are conceivable circumstances where the protections and prohibitions identified by the amendment would not apply. For example, a religion that required murder (say, some satanic vampire cult thing) would not be protected, or speech involving incitement to murder and riot would not be protected. But I never read the text in question so I really don't know.