Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Cases that consider the First Amendment implications of payments mandated by the state going to use in part for speech by third parties Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1978) Chicago Local Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n ...
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."
This category includes court cases that deal with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, providing that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), arising out of what is sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair, [1] was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court dealing with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. This case is considered a "classic" free speech case in constitutional law classes. [2]
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to canvass signatures for a petition against United ...
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday is hearing arguments on whether laws proposed by Texas and Florida to ban social media companies from removing content are constitutional. Here's everything you ...
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that any laws that try to restrict the political spending of corporations and unions is a violation of the First Amendment’s right of free speech. This significantly impacted campaign finance laws.
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".