Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is a type of speech which is not legally protected. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ...
On entry across borders, the government may bar non-citizens from the United States based on their speech, even if that speech would have been protected if said by a citizen. [84] Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. [85] Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red ...
For example, in Austria, defaming Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is not protected as free speech. [44] [45] [46] In contrast, in France, blasphemy and disparagement of Muhammad are protected under free speech law. Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example, speech codes at state-operated ...
First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. [290] In United States v.
The Supreme Court may find that when social media platforms restrict, fact-check, take down or leave up content, this is constitutionally protected speech and the government cannot interfere ...
Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. [1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order that he said aims to restore freedom of speech and end censorship, drawing fire from critics who point to his ...
And the courts struggled to define its meaning and application. Some clarity came in 1974 when the Supreme Court ruled that states could only restrict speech aimed at producing "imminent lawless ...