Begin with government action. The First Amendment applies to federal, state, and local officials through the Constitution and incorporation doctrine. It ordinarily does not compel a privately owned newspaper, employer, or online platform to publish another person's message. Yet an official may not use threats, licensing power, or regulatory leverage to pressure a private intermediary into suppressing protected advocacy. Government cannot accomplish indirectly what it could not order directly.

Next ask why government restricted the speech. A content-based rule turns on the subject or message-for example, permitting signs about real estate but not elections. Viewpoint discrimination goes further by favoring one position within a subject, such as allowing praise of a tax proposal while forbidding criticism. Viewpoint discrimination is especially disfavored, and content-based restrictions on protected speech ordinarily face strict scrutiny.

A facially neutral explanation is not conclusive. Courts may examine the law's operation and justification. In Chiles v. Salazar (2026), the Supreme Court held that Colorado could not avoid First Amendment review by calling regulated talk therapy professional conduct when the law, as applied, permitted speech supporting some counseling goals while prohibiting speech supporting the opposing goal. The principle is classification, not a general immunity for every professional practice: determine whether the challenged application regulates speech and whether it selects a viewpoint.

Place and institutional role affect the analysis. Streets and parks are traditional public forums, where content-based exclusions are highly suspect and properly drawn content-neutral logistical rules may apply. A government can create a limited forum for a particular subject or group, but it generally may not exclude a participant because of viewpoint within the forum's stated boundaries. In a nonpublic forum, such as an internal government mail system, restrictions may be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Government ownership alone therefore does not settle the question.

Political speech also appears in specialized institutions. Public employees, students, prisoners, and service members retain constitutional interests, but government may possess additional authority as employer, educator, custodian, or military administrator. The correct response is not "political speech always wins" or "government owns the setting." It is to identify the forum or institutional rule before applying the protection.

Consider a city auditorium opened to community groups discussing municipal policy. Officials accept a neighborhood association that supports a zoning plan but reject an association that opposes the same plan. The city has acted; the expression is political; the auditorium is a government-created forum; and the reason is opposition to the group's viewpoint. Calling the group "controversial" does not create a separate exception.

Use the same sequence whenever a question mentions offense. Anger, disgust, or fear of criticism may explain political pressure, but offense is not a doctrinal category. Government must point to a valid forum rule, a content-neutral interest, or a narrowly defined category such as incitement. The audience's dislike cannot substitute for the elements of that rule.

Video lesson: Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics #25