Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Argument: Oral argument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Questions presented; Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as ...
Oral argument is not always considered an essential part of due process, as the briefs also give the parties an opportunity to be heard by the court. Whether a court will permit, require, or guarantee the opportunity to present oral argument is a decision usually left up to each court to decide as part of its rules of procedure, with ...
In Fall of 2003, Forum for the Academic & Institution Rights, Inc. (FAIR), an association of law schools and law faculty asked the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to enjoin enforcement of the Solomon Amendment on the grounds it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association. The ...
A municipal ordinance that placed stricter limitations on the size and placement of religious signs than other types of signs was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech. Court membership; Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and declared Minnesota's announce clause to be in violation of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that Minnesota's announce clause "burden[ed] a category of speech that is at the core of First Amendment freedoms -- speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office."
Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286, is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with 15 U.S.C. § 1052, a provision of the Lanham Act regarding trademarks using the name of living individuals without their consent. The court decided that the provision does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. [1] [2]
Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a "breach of peace" ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned speech that "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States ...
Further, the Wisconsin Supreme Court claimed that the law was also unconstitutionally over broad, reasoning that, in order to prove a person selected a victim in the prohibited manner, the state would need to introduce evidence of a person's prior speech. The court thought this would create a "chilling effect" on free speech in general, as ...