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.
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.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51) was a 1985 case in the Supreme Court of India.It came before the Court as a written petition by pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay (Now Mumbai), seeking to be allowed to stay on the pavements against their order of eviction during the monsoon months by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907), was a First Amendment case. Before 1919, the primary legal test used in the United States to determine if speech could be criminalized was the bad tendency test. [1] Rooted in English common law, the test permitted speech to be outlawed if it had a tendency to harm public welfare. [1]
Further, the Wisconsin Supreme Court claimed that the law was also unconstitutionally over broad, reasoning that, in order to prove a person selected a victim in the prohibited manner, the state would need to introduce evidence of a person's prior speech. The court thought this would create a "chilling effect" on free speech in general, as ...
A written transcript of Wednesday’s oral arguments in Moore v. Harper is now publicly available on the U.S. Supreme Court’s website. The case, named partly for N.C. House Speaker Tim Moore, is ...
In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and declared Minnesota's announce clause to be in violation of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that Minnesota's announce clause "burden[ed] a category of speech that is at the core of First Amendment freedoms -- speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office."
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech was not facially violated. [1]