<P> (Our) decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action . </P> <P> The opinion in Brandenburg discarded the previous test of "clear and present danger" and made the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in the United States almost absolute . Hate speech is also protected by the First Amendment in the United States, as decided in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992) in which the Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible, except in the case of imminent violence . See the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for more detailed information on this decision and its historical background . </P> <P> Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that "the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech". International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet . The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 was the first major attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet . In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the US Supreme Court partially overturned the law . Judge Stewart R. Dalzell, one of the three federal judges who in June 1996 declared parts of the CDA unconstitutional, in his opinion stated the following: </P> <P> The Internet is a far more speech - enhancing medium than print, the village green, or the mails . Because it would necessarily affect the Internet itself, the CDA would necessarily reduce the speech available for adults on the medium . This is a constitutionally intolerable result . Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse . Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar--in a word, "indecent" in many communities . But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice . We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates. (...) My analysis does not deprive the Government of all means of protecting children from the dangers of Internet communication . The Government can continue to protect children from pornography on the Internet through vigorous enforcement of existing laws criminalizing obscenity and child pornography . (...) As we learned at the hearing, there is also a compelling need for public educations about the benefits and dangers of this new medium, and the Government can fill that role as well . In my view, our action today should only mean that Government's permissible supervision of Internet contents stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech . (...) The absence of governmental regulation of Internet content has unquestionably produced a kind of chaos, but as one of the plaintiff's experts put it with such resonance at the hearing: "What achieved success was the very chaos that the Internet is . The strength of the Internet is chaos ." Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so that strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects . </P>

Where did the suggestions for the bill of rights come from