Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Symbolic speech is a legal term in United States law used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it. [1] Symbolic speech is recognized as being protected under the First Amendment as a form of speech, but this is not expressly written as such in the document.
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.
On entry across borders, the government may bar non-citizens from the United States based on their speech, even if that speech would have been protected if said by a citizen. [84] Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. [85] Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red ...
Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is a type of speech which is not legally protected. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ...
Cases in which it has been alleged governmental officials retaliated for protected speech made by private citizens who are not employed by said officials. Bridges v. California (1941) Pennekamp v. Florida (1946) Wood v. Georgia (1962) Haig v. Agee (1981) Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991) Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018) Nieves v ...
DHS monitored 'social media reactions' to Roe, collected legally protected speech, bulletin shows. Jana Winter. November 16, 2022 at 7:12 PM.
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".
None of these is a speech-related charge; they are actions. But incitement was only not charged because it raises tricky free speech questions that might bog down prosecution on the other charges ...