Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under the Miller test, speech is unprotected if "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, [54] would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest", "the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by ...
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 Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.
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 ...
Respecting free speech defends individual rights and lets people show us who they are. Skip to main content. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to ...
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 difference between incitement and fighting words is subtle, focusing on the intent of the speaker. Inciting speech is characterized by the speaker's intent to make someone else the instrument of his or her unlawful will. Fighting words, by contrast, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker. [20]
The Court opined that imposing a criminal sanction on protected speech is a "stark example of speech suppression", but at the same time, that sexual abuse of children "is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people." "Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has."