Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Telemarketing Assoc., Inc. upheld an Illinois telemarketing anti-fraud law against claims that it was a form of prior restraint, affirming consumer protection against misrepresentation was a valid government interest justifying a free speech exception for false claims made in that context. The 2012 decision United States v.
Free speech in the United States. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange. ISBN 1-58477-085-6. Cronin, Mary M. (ed.) An Indispensable Liberty: The Fight for Free Speech in Nineteenth-Century America. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2016. Donohue, Laura K (2005). "Terrorist Speech and the Future of Free Expression" (PDF). Cardozo Law Review.
In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote (about 6% of the population). [3] [4] [5] The 'Three-Fifths Compromise' allowed the southern slaveholders to consolidate power and maintain slavery in America for eighty years after the ratification of the Constitution. [6]
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling that makes it harder to hold people responsible for harassment online could send a troubling symbolic message about free speech to institutions other than ...
The silver lining of America's free speech worries
In essence, Free Speech Zones prevent a person from having complete mobility as a consequence of their exercising their right to speak freely. Courts have accepted time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech in the United States, but such restrictions must be narrowly tailored, and free speech zones have been the subject of lawsuits.
Executive Order 14149, titled "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship", is an executive order signed by Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States, on January 20, 2025, the day of his second inauguration.
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...