Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is the question of speech which is offensive to prevailing community standards by reason of being vulgar, lewd, or indecent speech. α [9] Courts have held that offensiveness is a question of whether speech is plainly offensive in terms of sexual content or implication, rather than simply expressing ideas and beliefs considered offensive ...
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 ...
The goal of time, place and manner restrictions is to regulate speech in a way that still protects freedom of speech. [34] While freedom of speech is considered by the United States to be a fundamental right, it is not absolute, and therefore subject to restrictions. Time, place, and manner restrictions are relatively self-explanatory.
The First Amendment is mentioned 39 times and the word “unconstitutional” is cited 18 times in the judge’s 54-page decision granting Maron’s request for a preliminary injunction halting ...
A pair of Eddy County Sheriff’s deputies sued the county for releasing their personnel files which were allegedly used to defame the officers on social media.
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public high school could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a ...
Apr. 9—CONCORD — The chief author of bipartisan legislation (HB 1305) to adopt a freedom of speech policy on public higher education campuses urged a state Senate panel to reject any further ...
Cases pertaining to whether or not extending protections to speech constitutes government endorsement of speech. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015) Matal v. Tam (2017) Iancu v. Brunetti (2019) Shurtleff v. City of Boston, No. 20-1800, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)