Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Under the Miller test, speech is unprotected if "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, [54] would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest", "the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by ...
A statute doing so is overly broad (hence, overbreadth) if, in proscribing unprotected speech, it also proscribes protected speech. Because an overly broad law may deter constitutionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows a party to whom the law may constitutionally be applied to challenge the statute on the ground that it ...
Next, that is inevitably broadened to include hate speech more generally, and extremism, and misinformation, and so on. In the case of Germany, the authorities also prohibit insults about politicians.
The difference between incitement and fighting words is subtle, focusing on the intent of the speaker. Inciting speech is characterized by the speaker's intent to make someone else the instrument of his or her unlawful will. Fighting words, by contrast, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker. [20]
[20] Even though there are several examples of the use of penalizing false speech (like perjury), Kennedy argued that "[t]he Government has not demonstrated that false statements generally should constitute a new category of unprotected speech..." [21] The plurality opinion also expressed the wide applicability of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
Respecting free speech defends individual rights and lets people show us who they are. Skip to main content. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to ...
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 ...
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...