<![CDATA[long island first amendment lawyers - Famighetti & Weinick]]> https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com/blog/tags/long-island-first-amendment-lawyers/ Wed, 20 May 2026 17:00:31 GMT en-us <![CDATA[Twitter and the First Amendment]]> https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com/blog/twitter-and-the-first-amendment/ https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com/blog/twitter-and-the-first-amendment/ Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:27:03 GMT The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects several rights, including the freedom of speech. Indeed, the text of the Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Like most Constitutional rights, the freedom of speech is not limitless and the level of Constitutional protection speech may…

]]> The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects several rights, including the freedom of speech. Indeed, the text of the Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Like most Constitutional rights, the freedom of speech is not limitless and the level of Constitutional protection speech may be afforded depends, sometimes, on where the speech is made. Courts have interpreted the freedom of speech to apply to a variety of forums, including books, public streets, and, in some cases, public buildings. Today’s civil rights blog discusses the collision between a centuries old document and 21st century technology – twitter.

Public Forums vs. Non-Public Forums

Throughout the course of U.S. history, the country’s courts have been called upon to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments. As First Amendment law has developed, it’s become understood that public spaces can fall into one of three types of forums — a public forum, a public forum by designation, and a non-public forum. The level of First Amendment rights a person has in a public space is dependent on which of these types of forum the public space is classified as.

Public forums are spaces which have traditionally been used by the people to exercise First Amendment rights. Parks are a leading example of a public forum.

Designated forums are spaces which have not traditionally been used for First Amendment purposes. An example of a designated forum might be an auditorium owned by a local government.

For both public forums and designated forums, free speech has the greatest protections. The government may impose some restrictions to address compelling state interests, but it cannot restrict speech based on content. In other words, the government may close a park at night for security concerns, but it could not close the park to prevent a particular community activist from speaking about a particular topic.

Non-public forums are spaces which are not traditionally used for public speech. A government office building is an example of a public space which is not used for speech. In non-public forums, the government can take broad measures to regulate speech and to maintain the space to be used for its intended purpose. Could you imagine if the government could not regulate free speech at the DMV? Anyone could walk in with their soap box, stand up, and deliver a speech while you’re waiting to renew your license. Even in non-public forums, however, the government cannot regulate speech based solely on the content of speech. For instance, the DMV could not allow someone to make a speech about how terrible the train system is, but kick out someone else for making a speech about how terrible the DMV is.

These concepts of public forums have posed trouble for Courts in traditional arenas. With the expansion of the internet and social media, and governments’ use of social media to share information, Courts will continue to struggle determining the appropriate level of Constitutional protection to apply to users of social media.

Social Media and the First Amendment

Recently, a group of twitter users sued, among others, President Trump. It is no secret that the President relies heavily on twitter and sends many tweets per day about a variety of matters. Twitter allows a person’s followers to respond to tweets, even to the President’s tweets. According to their lawsuit, by using a twitter feature, President Trump has blocked some twitter users from responding to his tweets. They allege this is a violation of their First Amendment rights.

This lawsuit raises many questions about the First Amendment, but it also raises another important point – do Courts understand the nature of twitter sufficient enough to be able to rule on the legal issues concerning First Amendment rights. Last year, in NLRB v. Pier Sixty, New York’s federal appellate court issued a decision involving Facebook which suggested the judges understood the importance of Facebook as medium for sharing ideas. But, the decision left open the question of whether the Court understood the inner workings of Facebook. According to media reports, the Court in the Trump twitter case spent a while asking the lawyers in the case about how twitter works. Ultimately, the judge in the Trump twitter case will have to decide, among other things, whether President Trump’s twitter feed is a public forum or something else`. That determination will drive the inquiry into whether the President violated the First Amendment by blocking followers.

Long Island First Amendment Lawyers

Though just a few words long, the First Amendment’s free speech clause can cause complicated legal issues. Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC are Long Island First Amendment lawyers. We are experienced in handling First Amendment issues for employees and citizens. Indeed, both partners Peter Famighetti and Matthew Weinick have won jury trials for cases arising from First Amendment violations. If you have a question about free speech or other First Amendment rights, contact a Long Island First Amendment lawyer at Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC. We are available at 631-352-0050 or on the internet at https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com.

Some of the facts and information for today’s civil rights blog was gathered from court documents filed in the case Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Donald J. Trump, No. 17-5205, S.D.N.Y. and from the New York Times.

]]> <![CDATA[Solicitation of Employment is First Amendment Speech]]> https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com/blog/solicitation-of-employment-is-first-amendment-speech/ https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com/blog/solicitation-of-employment-is-first-amendment-speech/ Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:09:34 GMT In 2009, the Town of Oyster Bay in New York passed a law prohibiting people from soliciting employment along roadways within the Town. Two public interest groups sued the Town alleging that the law violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. On August 22, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial…

]]> In 2009, the Town of Oyster Bay in New York passed a law prohibiting people from soliciting employment along roadways within the Town. Two public interest groups sued the Town alleging that the law violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. On August 22, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that the law violates the First Amendment. Today’s New York civil rights blog discusses the case Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Oyster Bay.

First Amendment Free Speech

The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing laws which restrict speech based on the content of the speech. For example, a law which generally allows picketing unless the picketing is aimed at a particular type of labor dispute has been declared unconstitutional. In Centro, the Second Circuit found that Oyster Bay’s law unlawfully regulated content based speech because the government would have to assess what the speaker was saying to determine whether the person was violating the law. In other words, as described by the Court, Oyster Bay would have to look at whether the person was stopping vehicles and saying “hire me” verse “tell me the time.” Thus, the Court had no problem finding that Oyster Bay’s law restricted content-based speech.

Commercial Speech is Less Protected Than Other Speech

Constitutional scholars can write lengthy articles about the different kinds of protections the Constitution gives to different types of speech. For purposes of today’s blog, it is sufficient to say that the Constitution gives very high protections to citizens who exercise the Constitution’s most fundamental rights. For example, a citizen who speaks about his or her political beliefs receives the highest level of Constitutional protection, called strict scrutiny.

The speech in Centro, however, concerned employment, which the Court determined constitutes “commercial speech.” The Constitution gives less protections to commercial speech and it is only protected by “intermediate scrutiny.” Under intermediate scrutiny, courts look at whether (1) the law restricts speech that concerns lawful activity; (2) the government has a substantial interest; (3) the law is connected to that interest; and (4) the law is not any more extensive than necessary to meet that government interest.

In Centro, the Court determined that asking for employment is a lawful activity. The Court also had little difficulty in finding that the Town’s interest in protecting the safety and welfare of motorists and pedestrians was substantial and that the law furthered that interest.

The last element of intermediate scrutiny is whether the law was “narrowly drawn to further the interests served.” The Second Circuit agreed with the trial court and found that Oyster Bay failed to establish this element.

First, the Court determined that there are many ways a person could solicit employment which don’t threaten public safety along roadways and so, the law was overbroad. As examples, the Court noted the law made it illegal for children to sell lemonade on a driveway, the law would prohibit a veteran from holding a sign on the sidewalk saying “will work for food,” and it would prevent students from advertising a school car wash on the side of a road.

The Court further noted that there were many other ways to draft the law such that it would not violate the First Amendment, even citing similar laws passed by Oyster Bay which are constitutional.

In sum, the Centro case invalidated the Oyster Bay employment solicitation law because it impermissibly regulated free speech and thus violated the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Long Island First Amendment Lawyers

If you have questions about the Centro case, or about First Amendment free speech or other rights, contact the Long Island First Amendment lawyers of Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC. Our lawyers are available on the web at https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com or at 631-352-0050.

]]>