What are the limits of free speech when referring to a person in the US? I am not very clear on limits of free speech in the U.S. The question is, can it, and in which cases, be considered illegal to call a person by any other name, but their actual name or pronoun? For example, would it be legal to call President of the USA a &quot;dumbhead&quot; or another derogatory word? could it be considered illegal for a shopkeeper to call all her customers &quot;ducks&quot;? calling a particular politician &quot;sleazy&quot;? calling somebody by another gender's pronoun? For all cases, if it makes difference, we assume everyday communication between two people, which can potentially be overheard by others, but is not intentionally meant to be addressed to more than one.
Generally speaking, all these examples would be perfectly legal. American speech law starts from the presumption that speech is protected from government punishment, and then asks if it fits into one of several categories of unprotected speech, which are laid out in other answers. Name-calling generally doesn't fit into any of those categories, so none of your examples would be illegal. The answer might change if the name-calling went far enough to suggest some false assertion of fact about your subject. Calling someone &quot;murderer&quot; or &quot;pedophile&quot; might cross the line into libel, which is unprotected, or it might be punished as &quot;fighting words&quot; if it could be expected to provoke the subject to violence. Another qualification is that the government has a bit more leeway to regulate speech when it is acting as an employer rather than as the government. So if you were a clerk at the license bureau, the government might be able to require you to use people's preferred names or pronouns; if you refused to do so, you might be subject to employment-related discipline, but not to criminal or civil sanctions.
The law allows you to name your child whatever you want with some exceptions: names containing ideograms, pictograms, diacritical marks, obscenities or too long names are prohibited. That said, there is no law to forbid naming your child Bob Jr. (or even Bob Sr. or Bob The Great). With numbers, things are a little bit tricky and vary from state to state, but using Roman suffixes is normally allowed, which means the law won't stop you naming your child Bob XVII or whatever: No state prohibits the use of a numeral if it is spelled out. It would be permissible, for example, to name a child "Eight." But several states prohibit the use of a numerical symbol, which would prohibit naming a child "8." New Jersey, for example, permits the State Registrar to reject names that contain "numerals" or a "combination of letters, numerals, or symbols. In Illinois, administrative practice prohibits numerals when used as the first character in a child’s name. Texas prohibits numerals as part of the name or suffix, although Roman numerals may be used for suffixes. Thus, a child could be named "John William Turner III," but not "John William Turner 3" or "John William 3 Turner." (from the paper by Carlton F.W. Larson).
No, abuse of power is not necessarily criminal Imagine a judge that is “heightist” - they always rule in favor of defendants who are taller than 175cm and always rule against those who are shorter irrespective of the merits of the case. This is clearly an abuse of power. It’s not illegal because “height” is not a category protected from discrimination (AFAIK). However, it is a failure to correctly discharge their legal obligations.
Hate Speech is not a crime in the United States. Rather, they have "Hate Crimes" which are charged only when the prosecution wishes to show that the crime was motivated by hatred of a protected class of people (I.E. the killer shouts a slur at his victim.). They cannot be charged in absence. Spoken word, advocacy for policies that favor one protected class over another, and other signs of hatred are not in and of themselves crimes. Unless a content provider is physically within Australia's borders, their is little legal recourse. The United States does not extradite anyone to a country to face charges for crimes that are not criminal offenses in the United States. Since the site promotes these ideas but has not used the ideas as a motivation to engage criminal activity, they would not extradite the accused individual(s).
Note: this can vary by jurisdiction. Defamation in General Defamation can be libel, which is written, or slander, which is spoken. In order to prove you are the victim of defamation, you must show that the statement that allegedly defamed you was: published false injurious, and unprivileged Published means that some third party (other than you and the individual who allegedly defamed you) saw or heard the statement that allegedly defamed you. This can be achieved through media as varied as a newspaper, a picket sign, or even in conversation. The truth is not subject to suit for defamation. It doesn’t matter how mean something is, if it is true, you can’t sue. Thus, the statement made must have been objectively false (therefore protecting opinions). You must show how your reputation was hurt by the statement. Being ostracized in your community, losing work, being harassed by reporters, are examples of ways to show the statement was injurious to you. Finally, there are certain situations where the importance of free speech is even more important than usual to make a speaker’s statement be considered as “privileged.” For example, it is so important for a witness in a trial to be frank and open in their testimony that it is recognized they should not feel constrained by worrying about whether they will get sued for defamation. Thus, a witness who falsely testified to something in court or a deposition is not subject to defamation suits. Obviously, prosecution for perjury is possible if they testify to something they know is false. The Public Figure You are talking about the Family Guy and other TV shows which make fun of politicians and other well-known people from Kelsey Grammar to Whoopi Goldberg. Because the value we put on the ability to criticize our government and those we elect to it, as well as all publicly influential people in general, the people Family Guy, etc., make fun of, public figures, have a higher bar to reach when it comes to proving defamation. A public figure is someone who has gained prominence in the community as a result of his or her name or exploits, whether willingly or unwillingly. Easy examples of this can include politicians, CEOs, NFL quarterbacks, or movie stars. However, certainly, depending on jurisdiction and context, certainly regional or local level individuals may at times be considered public figures. To prevail in a case alleging defamation, a public figure has to prove the above-mentioned four elements and, additionally, must show that the person who made the statement was acting with “actual malice.” This rule derives from the Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan where SCOTUS described the reasoning as deriving from a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. Thus, a private person claiming defamation has more protection as a victim than a public figure does as a victim. When people put themselves out there for any reason, they are causing themselves to become a matter of public interest and subject to scrutiny. A private person should not have to walk around with the same burden on his mind because he has not likewise put himself out there. That said, the private person may be “pushed” into the public sphere without his consent due to other occurrences that drew the public’s attention to him. The Limited Purpose Public Figure Finally, a person may be a limited purpose public figure where he has purposely and noticeably put himself out there in some public controversy with the purpose of influencing the controversy’s outcome. An example is a church pastor who decries abortion because “he thrust himself to the forefront of a particular controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issue.” Another is a local expert on suicide because that person “distinguished herself in this particular field.” Limited purpose public figures must also show “actual malice” to prevail in a defamation suit. Parody/Satire These forms of communication, despite containing statements that may be intentionally injurious and/or offenses, are protected under the notion of political commentary. Satire and parody are protected, “provided a reasonable reader would not mistake the statements as describing actual facts.” So, someone who is the subject of parody of satire cannot sue “unless the irreverent comments contain a provably false fact.” In addition, they must also prove the “actual malice” element and the four original elements. Various factors go into deciding whether something is parody or satire and it is a reasonableness test where none of those factors are subject to an absolute requirement or subject to a certain level. For context, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of actions reporters can take when publishing parody and satire, noting again that no single item below must be included and the presence of one of them does not provide an absolute defense. Is the content at issue separated or labeled to indicate it is not straight news? Does the irreverent tone exist throughout the piece? Does the publication have a history of producing satire or parody? For example, the difference between The Onion and cnn.com. Are there illogical or over-the-top situations or actions in the piece? Are there fictitious names that are similar to real ones? Such as, “Don Drumpft” and “Plaidimir Vutin” (which I’ve actually seen somewhere once!). If this is based on a specific event, how soon after or long after was the content published? If the event is still in the public memory vs. if it has long been forgotten. Is there a disclaimer indicating it satire or parody? Note that a disclaimer must be reasonably visible and accessible to the average reader. Content seen on shows like the Family Guy are a) usually against public figures and b) usually sufficiently done in a context that conveys the fact that it is satire or parody. Therefore, suits against the show’s creators simply do not (or are very rare and even more rarely successful) do not materialize.
Sometimes rights conflict with each other, and the courts decide which right takes priority. The Sixth Amendment provides that a defendant is entitled to "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". The Fifth Amendment says "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". And the First Amendment gives the right to free speech, which includes the right to not be compelled to speak. If you're on trial and try to get someone else to confess on the stand, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination trumps your Sixth Amendment right to have him testify. But if he couldn't take the fifth (for example, if he had already been acquitted), your Sixth Amendment right would override his First Amendment right to free speech.
There are no such laws that are specific to rape, but there are general laws about false statements. In every state there is some law against making a false statement to a government official, e.g. Washington RCW 9A.76.175 which says that one who "knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor". To shift context slightly, if you report to the police that Smith stole your lawn mower when in fact you gave it to him, that is a false statement. However, there would have to be clear proof that you lied in your report, and not that there was a misunderstanding. If Smith stole the mower but the evidence did not support a theft conviction, that does not mean that you can be prosecuted for making a false statement (whereas, if someone has a video of you telling Smith "Here's a mower, which I give to you because I like you", then you could almost be prosecuted for making a false statement, were it not for the fact that the video is illegal in Washington). Perjury is the other related crime: RCW 9A.72.020 "a materially false statement which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law". [Addendum] About the video of the mower being given away... Washington is an all-party consent state, meaning that you can't just record people, you have to have their permission (everybody's permission). RCW 9.73.050 says that information obtained by illegal recording shall be inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state, except with the permission of the person whose rights have been violated in an action brought for damages under the provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 which is to say, "unless the person(s) who did not give permission to be recorded now give permission for the evidence to be admitted". Since "you" would be the one making a false statement, "you" would have an interest in suppressing the video, thus "you" could withhold permission for the video to be introduced.
The First Amendment does indeed guarantee the freedom to express any idea or viewpoint, the limitation being incitement to immediate lawless action, recently reaffirmed in Snyder v. Phelps (many free speech cases have been about criminal restrictions on speech, this applied even to a suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress). There isn't a clear line that distinguishes "advocating violation of the law" and "inciting to immediate lawlessness". Saying "(You should) shoot The Man whenever you see him" would be protected expression, but "There's a cop, somebody kill him" would be incitement. It also has to be a "credible" incitement, so saying "Kill him now!" to a room full of pacifist nuns would not constitute incitement. Things said to an angry mob would be more along the lines of incitement.