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".
The Supreme Court struck down a law of this type in New York as a violation of the First Amendment in the case Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board (1991). [293] That statute did not prohibit publication of a memoir by a convicted criminal. Instead, it provided that all profits from the book were to be put in escrow for a time.
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 ...
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]
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.
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.
Blasphemy law in the United States. In the 20th century, the United States began to invalidate laws against blasphemy which had been on the books since before the founding of the nation [citation needed], or prosecutions on that ground, as it was decided that they violated the American Constitution. The First Amendment to the United States ...