Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The exception for child pornography is distinct from the obscenity exception in a few ways. First, the rule is much more specific to what falls under the exception. Second, it is irrelevant whether any part of the speech meets the Miller test; if it is classified under the child pornography exception at all, it becomes unprotected. [62]
The First Amendment did not excuse newspapers from the Sherman Antitrust Act. News, traded between states, counts as interstate commerce and is subject to the act. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests (326 U.S. 20 [clarification needed]).
The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment). [2] Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case". [3]
Prior case law had established two relevant categories of speech that were outside the protection of the First Amendment. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), [3] the Court had held that the First Amendment allowed the government to restrict obscenity. And in New York v.
The issue of a reporter's privilege came to the forefront of media attention in the 2005 case In re Miller, involving reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper.Miller and Cooper were both served with grand jury subpoenas for testimony and information, including notes and documents pertaining to conversations with specific and all other official sources relating the Plame affair.
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared to have deep concerns of state laws enacted in Florida and Texas that would would prohibit social media platforms from throttling certain political viewpoints.
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 ...
The justices who signed on to the court’s per curiam opinion, grappled with whether the law is subject to a First Amendment review since it does not directly regulate the content posted by the ...