🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • First Amendment - Free Speech
CONLAW#121
Legal Definition
The government can require a license for speech only if there is an important reason for licensing and clear criteria leaving almost no discretion on the licensing authority. Licensing schemes must contain procedural safeguards, such as: (1) prompt determination of requirements for licenses, and (2) judicial review.
Plain English Explanation
Free speech is a fundamental right in the United States, but in some cases the government can require you to get a license before engaging in certain types of speech. However, this power is limited to prevent abuse.
The government needs a really important reason to require a license, like public safety. The rules for getting the license have to be very clear and specific, leaving little room for the licensing officials to make judgment calls. This prevents them from playing favorites or punishing views they disagree with.
There also have to be strong procedural protections. Licenses must be granted or denied quickly so people aren't stuck in limbo. And if you're denied a license, you have the right to appeal to the courts.
These strict limits exist because allowing the government broad power to license speech would enable censorship and undermine the First Amendment. The ability to speak freely is critical for democracy. While some narrow restrictions may be justified, the Constitution ensures the government can't use licensing to control public discourse.
The government needs a really important reason to require a license, like public safety. The rules for getting the license have to be very clear and specific, leaving little room for the licensing officials to make judgment calls. This prevents them from playing favorites or punishing views they disagree with.
There also have to be strong procedural protections. Licenses must be granted or denied quickly so people aren't stuck in limbo. And if you're denied a license, you have the right to appeal to the courts.
These strict limits exist because allowing the government broad power to license speech would enable censorship and undermine the First Amendment. The ability to speak freely is critical for democracy. While some narrow restrictions may be justified, the Constitution ensures the government can't use licensing to control public discourse.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: The city of Hypoville passes an ordinance requiring all street performers to obtain a license before performing in public parks. The ordinance gives the park commissioner sole discretion to grant or deny licenses based on whether the performances are "in the public interest." Bob's application for a juggling license is denied with no explanation. Result: This licensing scheme is likely unconstitutional. The criteria of "public interest" is too vague, giving the commissioner nearly unlimited discretion to grant or deny licenses based on the content or viewpoint of the speech. There are also no procedural safeguards like a prompt decision or judicial review.
Hypo 2: New Hypoland requires websites of a certain size to obtain an operating license. The law directs the Secretary of Internet to grant licenses to sites that "serve the public good" but provides no other guidance. When Bob's political blog is denied a license, he is told he can reapply in one year but there is no appeals process. Result: New Hypoland's internet licensing regime is almost certainly unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment. The "public good" standard gives the Secretary unbridled discretion to approve or deny licenses based on a site's content, enabling viewpoint discrimination. The long delay and lack of judicial review compound the free speech violation.
Hypo 3: Hypofornia requires a license to put on a concert or music festival, citing the need for crowd control and safety. The law clearly defines the neutral requirements for a license focused on security and capacity. It requires a decision in 2 weeks and allows court appeals. Bob plans an anti-government folk music festival but is denied a permit. Result: Hypofornia's permit system for large music events would likely be upheld. Crowd safety is an important governmental concern, and the law uses clear, non-discriminatory criteria that restrict discretion and the ability to judge speech content. The procedural safeguards of a prompt ruling and judicial review are also in place. Bob's recourse would be to challenge the denial in court, not the validity of the law.
Hypo 4: Sam sets up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk in front of his house. A police officer informs Sam he needs a business license from city hall to sell drinks. Sam goes to city hall the next day and easily obtains the permit for a small fee after filling out a simple form. Result: The business permit Sam had to obtain would not implicate the First Amendment because operating a lemonade stand is not "speech." The government has broad leeway to require business and health licenses outside the free speech context. This standard permit applying to all businesses does not target speech or enable content discrimination.
Hypo 2: New Hypoland requires websites of a certain size to obtain an operating license. The law directs the Secretary of Internet to grant licenses to sites that "serve the public good" but provides no other guidance. When Bob's political blog is denied a license, he is told he can reapply in one year but there is no appeals process. Result: New Hypoland's internet licensing regime is almost certainly unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment. The "public good" standard gives the Secretary unbridled discretion to approve or deny licenses based on a site's content, enabling viewpoint discrimination. The long delay and lack of judicial review compound the free speech violation.
Hypo 3: Hypofornia requires a license to put on a concert or music festival, citing the need for crowd control and safety. The law clearly defines the neutral requirements for a license focused on security and capacity. It requires a decision in 2 weeks and allows court appeals. Bob plans an anti-government folk music festival but is denied a permit. Result: Hypofornia's permit system for large music events would likely be upheld. Crowd safety is an important governmental concern, and the law uses clear, non-discriminatory criteria that restrict discretion and the ability to judge speech content. The procedural safeguards of a prompt ruling and judicial review are also in place. Bob's recourse would be to challenge the denial in court, not the validity of the law.
Hypo 4: Sam sets up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk in front of his house. A police officer informs Sam he needs a business license from city hall to sell drinks. Sam goes to city hall the next day and easily obtains the permit for a small fee after filling out a simple form. Result: The business permit Sam had to obtain would not implicate the First Amendment because operating a lemonade stand is not "speech." The government has broad leeway to require business and health licenses outside the free speech context. This standard permit applying to all businesses does not target speech or enable content discrimination.
Related Concepts
Are fighting words protected speech?
Are profane and indecent speech protected?
Can government speech be challenged?
How do you analyze a free speech issue?
Is anonymous speech protected?
Is discretion allowed in determining fees for public demonstrations?
Is speech protected when it incites illegal activity?
May the government seize assets of businesses that violate obscenity laws?
What are content-based restrictions, and which level of scrutiny is applied?
What are designated public forums?
What are limited public forums?
What are non-public forums?
What are prior restraints and when are they valid?
What are public forums?
What are the limits of free speech during a broadcast?
What does the 1st Amendment prohibit, and how is it applied?
What is the 1st Amendment right to access private property for speech?
What is the constitutionality of laws prohibiting group discrimination?
What level of scrutiny is applied to content-based restrictions on public forums?
What level of scrutiny is applied to court orders suppressing speech?
What level of scrutiny is applied to laws impacting freedom of association?
What level of scrutiny is applied to laws that require disclosure of group membership?
What rights do the press have in addition to those granted to private citizens?
When are obscenities and sexually oriented speech considered obscene?
When are time, place, and manner restrictions on speech valid?
When is a law unconstitutionally overbroad?
When is a law unconstitutionally vague?
When is commercial speech protected, and when is it not?
When is speech by government employees not protected?
When may a private figure recover for defamation if there is no matter of public concern?
When may a private figure recover for defamation regarding a matter of public concern?
When may a public official or figure recover for defamation?
When may the government ban child pornography?
When may the government burden lawful, non-misleading, non-fraudulent commercial speech?
When may the government punish or limit news reporting?
When may the government punish private possession of obscene materials?
When may the government regulate symbolic speech?
When may the government use zoning ordinances to regulate adult businesses?
Which level of scrutiny is applied to content-neutral restrictions?
