Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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".
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in ...
Food libel laws have faced opposition from free speech defenders, who argue that they restrict speech about agricultural products to a degree which is unconstitutional. [ 5 ] [ 21 ] Of particular concern is that some states' food libel laws seem to violate the "of or concerning" precedent which was established in the Supreme Court's 1964 ...
The so-called “medical free speech protection” was a last-minute add to House Bill 315, a more than 400-page bill passed in the final hours of the last legislative session in December.
The medical freedom group has downplayed any role that the case of Sherri Tenpenny played in driving the latest medical free speech proposal. Tenpenny, an Ohio osteopathic doctor, drew national attention when video of her June 2021 testimony before state legislators that COVID-19 vaccines made people magnetic was posted to the internet.
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 ...
So before this once-a-year give-us-your-money party concludes, I want to make one more appeal: Give us your money, because Reason will always stand on the side of open debate and free speech.
This category includes court cases that deal with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, providing that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."