Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Violating the perceived intention of the law has been found to affect people's judgments of culpability above and beyond violations of the letter of the law such that (1) a person can violate the letter of the law (but not the spirit) and not incur culpability, (2) a person can violate the spirit of the law and incur culpability, even without violating the letter of the law, and (3) the ...
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
e. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.
Imminent lawless action. " Imminent lawless action " is one of several legal standards American courts use to determine whether certain speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standard was first established in 1969 in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio.[1][2]
e. In the United States, the right to petition is enumerated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Although often overlooked in favor of other more famous freedoms ...
U.S. Const. amend. VI. Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.
Cases concerned with the definition of obscenity and whether a particular work or type of material is obscene. Roth v. United States (1957) Alberts v. California, (1957) One, Inc. v. Olesen, (1958) MANual Enterprises v. Day, (1962) Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) Memoirs v. Massachusetts, (1966) Kois v. Wisconsin (1972) Miller v. California (1973 ...