Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In a 5–2 decision, the court concluded that the law, as drafted, was "overbroad and facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." [ 9 ] Basing its decision on the breadth and vagueness doctrines , the court concluded that the law is of "alarming breadth" as it criminalized a broad spectrum of protected communications ...
First Amendment concerns often arise when questionable speech is uttered or posted online. This is equally true when dealing with cyberbullying. Particularly in instances where there are no laws explicitly against cyberbullying, it is not uncommon for defendants to argue that their conduct amounts to an exercise of their freedom of speech.
In a 2024 New York Times essay, Columbia law professor Tim Wu warned that "the First Amendment is spinning out of control." He bemoaned Supreme Court decisions extending constitutional protection ...
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
In 2017, a juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that repeatedly encouraging someone to commit suicide was not protected by the First Amendment, [12] and found a 20-year-old woman, who was 17 at the time of the offense, guilty of manslaughter on this basis. [13] The judge cited a little-known 1816 precedent. [14]
TikTok and ByteDance asked the Supreme Court on Dec. 16 to pause the law, which they said violates free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Supreme Court justices slammed First Amendment arguments made by TikTok as the popular social media app tries to avoid a U.S. ban in the coming days.. Lawyers for ByteDance, the parent company of ...
Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools has been cited as an important precedent for the law of cyberbullying in public schools, [8] though some commentators claim that the ruling restricts student speech rights [9] and causes confusion on the matter of speech that takes place outside of school grounds. [10]