Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was passed by Congress in 2000. CIPA was Congress's third attempt to regulate obscenity on the Internet, but the first two (the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998) were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional free speech restrictions, largely due to vagueness and overbreadth issues that ...
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 ...
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling by a 9–0 vote that the free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution, which was substantially similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, did not extend to motion pictures.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. [1] In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment (incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court upset the tradition against advertising ...
In 1996, Gregory Wersal ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. He distributed literature critical of several Minnesota Supreme Court decisions. An ethics complaint was filed against him; however, the board, which was to review the complaint, dismissed the charges and cast doubt upon the constitutionality of the announce clause.
A written transcript of Wednesday’s oral arguments in Moore v. Harper is now publicly available on the U.S. Supreme Court’s website. The case, named partly for N.C. House Speaker Tim Moore, is ...
The defendants attempted a free speech argument and claimed that the Sedition Act conflicted with the free speech protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but this argument was rejected by the criminal court. [2] All five appealed their convictions to the United States Supreme Court with a focus on the First Amendment argument.
The Court asserted that "this Court is bound by holdings, not language." [12] Therefore, from the majority's point of view, the holding of Cannon did not include the footnote. The Court also rejected the argument that Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission, a case the Court decided in 1983, dictated the outcome of Sandoval.