Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On entry across borders, the government may bar non-citizens from the United States based on their speech, even if that speech would have been protected if said by a citizen. [84] Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. [85] Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red ...
Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is a type of speech which is not legally protected. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ...
Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with non-verbal free speech and its protections under the First Amendment.The Court, in a per curiam decision, ruled that a Washington state law that banned the display of the American flag adorned with additional decorations was unconstitutional as it violated protected speech.
The Supreme Court rejects a free speech challenge to a long-standing law that makes it a crime to 'encourage or induce' illegal immigration. 'Encouraging' illegal immigration is not protected as ...
The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may advance its speech without requiring viewpoint neutrality when the government itself is the speaker. Thus, when the state is the speaker, it may make content based choices. The simple principle has broad implications, and has led to contentious disputes within the Supreme Court. [1]
The cases have also varied on what contexts – such as the reaction of hearers (public officials, police officers, ordinary citizens) – make a difference for the limits on protected speech. [5] A particularly provocative example occurred in Cohen v.
None of these is a speech-related charge; they are actions. But incitement was only not charged because it raises tricky free speech questions that might bog down prosecution on the other charges ...
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v.