First Amendment free speech scope

On Apr 22, 7:40 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:32:51 -0400 from Seth <s...@panix.com>:
>
> > In article <4eke23d016dkaept3esj73gja5b1k06...@4ax.com>,
> >  <trav...@superiorelectricaldesigns.com> wrote:
>
> > >Can I call the  at fault party's insurance company and request a
> > >settlement for my injury?
>
> > The First Amendment says that you can.
>
> Really? Can you quote, please, the exact words that buttress your
> claim?

I read Trav's post as being slightly tongue in cheek.  He is saying the First Am. prevents government from passing any law that imposes a general prior restraint of the right of free speech, i.e. that criminalizes certain speech before it is uttered, absent proof of a compelling government interest in such restraint in a particular context.  Thus, no law prevents OP from picking up the phone and making such a demand of his insurance company.   As I'm frequently fond of saying, "there's no harm in asking."   That doesn't mean he's going to _get_ such a settlement, or even that the company has to, or will, listen to what he has to say, as opposed to hanging up on him as a crank caller.

> As far as I can see, the First Amendment gives you the right to speak
> anything that the government may or may not want to hear, but it does
> not give you the right to speak to any private party.

The First Am. does give OP the right to speak anywhere and to anyone without prior censorship of what OP is going to say, but it doesn't shield OP from the consequences of saying it, if his words could produce legally disfavored results -- e.g. fighting words, defamatory words, legally obscene (not merely indecent or vulgar) words, inciting to riot, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no such fire.   The government, i.e. the law, thus cannot generally prevent OP and others from talking to anyone they want.

The only exception I'm aware of, allowing such prior restraint in a particular case, is if OP has acted similarly in the past and if the objects of OP's attention have sued for an injunction and have proven to the satisfaction of a court of law that OP's conduct amounts to stalking or harassing them.   If the persons to whom OP wishes to speak have thus obtained a restraining order forbidding such behavior on his part in the future based on their proof of his pattern of objectionable past behavior, then yes, in that limited case the government can legally impose a prior restraint on a given person's future speech without violating the First Amendment.

But the government also cannot compel the intended target of OP's communications to pay him any attention, much less any money.   I think that is what Trav was getting at, in his oblique way.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300