Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Woodward Report, formally titled the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale, was issued by Yale University on December 23, 1974. Historian C. Vann Woodward chaired the committee. Yale endorsed the first section of the report as official policy. The final paragraph of that section reads:
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."
Woodward was born in Geneva, Illinois, the son of Jane (née Upshur) and Alfred E. Woodward, a lawyer who later became chief judge of the 18th Judicial Circuit Court.He was raised in nearby Wheaton, Illinois, and educated at Wheaton Community High School (WCHS), a public high school in the same town. [5]
Woodward refocused on politics and government. Veil lifted the same on the C.I.A. while The Commanders examined the military through the lens of the first Bush administration.
Some legal scholars (such as Tim Wu of Columbia University) have argued that the traditional issues of free speech—that "the main threat to free speech" is the censorship of "suppressive states", and that "ill-informed or malevolent speech" can and should be overcome by "more and better speech" rather than censorship—assumes scarcity of ...
Sullivan, [4] government-funded doctors in a government health program were not allowed to advise patients on obtaining abortions, and the doctors challenged this law on Free Speech grounds. [1] However, the Court held that because the program was government-funded, the doctors were, therefore, speaking on behalf of the government.
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, [4] the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so. [316] State constitutions provide free speech protections similar to those of the U.S. Constitution.
The government is not permitted to fire an employee based on the employee's speech if three criteria are met: the speech addresses a matter of public concern; the speech is not made pursuant to the employee's job duties, but rather the speech is made in the employee's capacity as a citizen; [47] and the damage inflicted on the government by the ...