[hirundo]

There are court decisions defining the scope of the 1st Amendment. There are no valid laws restricting it, since the 1st Amendment is in the Constitution and no law can supersede the constitution. Such laws that are written and passed are unconstitutional.

Edit: The above is mistaken. A law can restrict the 1st Amendment, or any other, if it survives "strict scrutiny":

Although "strict scrutiny leaves few survivors" and will usually strike down such laws when strict scrutiny is found to apply, "the government must show that there is a compelling, or very strong, interest in law, and that the law is either narrowly tailored or is the least restrictive means available to the government."

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1966/strict-scrutin...

[viro]

Umm instead of wasting time here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

as you can see a couple of those are laws like CP and "Threatening the president"

[q-big]

> There are no valid laws restricting [the scope of the 1st Amendment]

Copyright laws do that.

[ionicgiraffe]

They do. I have seen news in Europe where they cannot reproduce the original excerpt (reading aloud instead) of some communication because of copyright laws and the original excerpt belonged to a competing media corporation that had won previous such cases in court.

[disgu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...