Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
During colonial times, English speech regulations were rather restrictive.The English criminal common law of seditious libel made criticizing the government a crime. Lord Chief Justice John Holt, writing in 1704–1705, explained the rationale for the prohibition: "For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it."
The government is not permitted to fire an employee based on the employee's speech if three criteria are met: the speech addresses a matter of public concern; the speech is not made pursuant to the employee's job duties, but rather the speech is made in the employee's capacity as a citizen; [47] and the damage inflicted on the government by the ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A Georgia judge on Thursday rejected Donald Trump's bid to dismiss criminal charges in the state's 2020 election interference case against him, which the Republican former U ...
What came to be known as the Atlanta Compromise stemmed from a speech given by Booker T. Washington, president of the Tuskegee Institute, to the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 18, 1895. [1] [2] [3] It was first supported [4] and later opposed by W. E. B. Du Bois [5] and other African-American leaders.
The Georgia Resolutions of 1827 were a response to the Cherokee's refusal to cede their territory within the U.S. state of Georgia. The resolutions declared the state's right to title , jurisdiction , and authority over all the land within its borders.
After a singular LSD experience, Dederich conjured up a drug-free commune for heroin addicts in Santa Monica. Dederich held that addicts lacked maturity or the ability to handle freedom responsibly. They must be broken down to be built back up. “Comfort is not for adults,” Dederich argued in a taped speech during the commune’s early days.
Restrictions on free speech are only permissible when the speech at issue is likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. [179] Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court that "a function of free speech under our system is to invite dispute. It ...