Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech.
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v.Paxton, 603 U.S. 707 (2024), were United States Supreme Court cases related to protected speech under the First Amendment and content moderation by interactive service providers on the Internet under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Doyle, [3] the Supreme Court established a standard of but-for causation for claims of official retaliation against speech. However, in the 2006 case of Hartman v. Moore, [4] the Supreme Court established an exception for claims of retaliatory prosecution, requiring that a plaintiff show a lack of probable cause for their prosecution. [5]
The Court held that the law violated the First Amendment and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The first finding of the Court was that the law placed content and speaker based restrictions on speech. [D] Citing Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., the Court noted that these restrictions warranted heightened judicial scrutiny. [E]
The Supreme Court heard the updated case, now known as Turner II, in late 1996. Acknowledging the cable companies' compelled speech argument, the Supreme Court analyzed the must-carry regulations under the more demanding strict scrutiny analysis to determine if the companies' free speech rights were violated. This time, the Supreme Court ruled ...
The court's conservative justices indicated their willingness to uphold a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors during arguments on December 4 ...
(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Friday on whether the law banning TikTok is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment rights of the 170 million ...
Case history; Prior: Gilleo v. City of Ladue, 986 F.2d 1180 (8th Cir. 1993): Holding; A municipal ordinance aiming to reduce visual clutter through the regulation of signs in the yards of private homes that prohibits protected speech may violate the First Amendment if the ordinance cannot pass strict scrutiny.