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 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.
On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled the lawsuit could move forward under the First Amendment's free speech protections, but he denied their claims under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress 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.
The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of The New York Times to print the materials. [1]
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 book was positively received in reviews from academic and legal journals. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries recommended the book due to its thought-provoking propositions, [3] and a review in The Journal of Politics described it as "a nice effort to explore free speech issues not covered by the First Amendment or constitutional ...