Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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 ...
The ability to regulate inappropriate speech has been found to be especially important in situations where the student speech may have the appearance of being sponsored or endorsed by the school. [5] In Bethel, the Court held that the offensiveness test does not apply to off-campus speech but has been limited by Morse v. Frederick.
The following types of speech are not protected constitutionally: defamation or false statements, child pornography, obscenity, damaging the national security interests, verbal acts, and fighting words. Because these categories fall outside of the First Amendment privileges, the courts can legally restrict or criminalize any expressive act ...
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 ...
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. [1]
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 ...
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v.