The freeness of speech is a continuum. In some countries you can't say anything critical of the ruling party, even if it's true. In other countries you can say untrue and critical things as long as you don't know they are untrue. The standards and penalties for defamation and libel are an important part of the freeness of speech.
Countries have different standards for what qualifies as obscenity and what the consequences are.
Countries have different standards for what types of hate speech are allowed.
> In other countries you can say untrue and critical things as long as you don't know they are untrue.
In case it's not clear, in democracies a private citizen can knowingly say false things about public figures, especially political figures. A private citizen can sue you if you damage their reputation. Journalists can't usually knowingly publish falsehoods as news, but can as opinion. (Generally speaking; each country has its own implementations, of course.)
> democracies a private citizen can knowingly say false things about public figure
That is not true.
> Journalists can't usually knowingly publish falsehoods as news, but can as opinion
Also not true.
In the USA, journalists and private individuals have the same free speech rights and there no legal distinction between "opinion" and "news", it just matters if a reasonable person would see a statement of fact.
Yes, but you can sue anyone for anything. You not being a "journalist" doesn't provide any additional protection. Biden being a public figure does though, as he would have to demonstrate "actual malice" on your part to win.
> Can I be arrested?
Only about 1/4 of states in the USA have criminal libel laws and I am not familiar enough with them to say which if any would apply.
> The Constitution provides special protection for the press, as do many other laws, precedents
The supreme court has consistently ruled that "the press" in the first ammendment covers anyone publishing anything in any format, not just journalists. The constitution provides no special protections for journalists but instead extends those rights to everyone.
See: Associated Press v. NLRB, Bartnicki v. Vopper, Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. and more.
Most states do have "media shield laws" that specifically help journalists protect their sources, but these aren't constitutional rights. A district court in Branzburg v. Hayes did rule that a blogger didn't qualify as a journalist under Oregon's media shield law, but that was strongly influenced by the blogger soliciting payment to take the article down so isn't conclusive even there.
Supreme court precedents and the law. I've provided several of the relevant cases
> Imagine how many people write falsehoods about Biden with clear, actual, malice! Biden cannot sue them (in a meaningful sense).
The main reason that it would be difficult to win those cases is that as a public figure Biden would have to show "actual malice" for each person he sued regardless of if that person was a journalist or not.
In practice, the expected value if suing a large number of people with limited media reach is generally not worth it, but that has nothing to do with the constitution.
Where being a journalist might help is that media shield laws, depending on the state, could allow the journalist to protect their sources from discovery once they've veen sued.
What I mean is, are you lawyer in this field? Did you read a book about it (what book)?
I see things that are clearly wrong afaik (unless I misunderstand you), and others I don't know about. So I'm wondering what the source is. I can cite cases too, but I really don't have expertise.
I don't understand your question. We can list many things that are protected, but you know that. You also know that sometimes we don't execute perfectly, including on free speech. So I'm a bit lost ...
* critique of arguments for the existence of God (reasonable or otherwise)
* critiques of national policy of a given political party (reasonable or otherwise)
* reporting on the alleged wrongdoing of a powerful political official
* allegations of infidelity of people considered royalty within a given country
* finding and reporting security bugs in medical devices that use proprietary software
* satire
* propaganda
* thought experiments
* standing in a public square and lying about established facts of science
**
If you can categorize the speech and its not in the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater, I bet it's protected by the 1st Amendment.
Edit: clarification
Edit 2: Since this is HN and you didn't specify 1st Amendment in your question, let me be pedantic and add an empty bullet point for a type of speech that is protected by the 5th amendment:
*
Edit 3: I think my empty string is in the wrong scope. One must invoke the fifth amendment by speaking. So the bullet point should look like this:
* invoking the fifth amendment to say this: (NUL byte goes here)
