Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Fexofenadine, sold under the brand name Allegra among others, [10] is an antihistamine pharmaceutical drug used in the treatment of allergy symptoms, such as hay fever and urticaria. [ 11 ] Therapeutically, fexofenadine is a selective peripheral H 1 blocker .
It contains fexofenadine, as the hydrochloride, an antihistamine; and pseudoephedrine, as the hydrochloride, a nasal decongestant. [ 2 ] In 2021, it was the 279th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 800,000 prescriptions.
H 1 antagonists, also called H 1 blockers, are a class of medications that block the action of histamine at the H 1 receptor, helping to relieve allergic reactions. Agents where the main therapeutic effect is mediated by negative modulation of histamine receptors are termed antihistamines ; other agents may have antihistaminergic action but are ...
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 ...
Whether the speech is sexually vulgar or obscene (Bethel School District v. Fraser). Whether the speech, if allowed as part of a school activity or function, would be contrary to the basic educational mission of the school (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier). Each of these considerations has given rise to a separate mode of analysis, and in Morse v.
Criminal speech is a legal concept that identifies certain kinds of speech as a crime and outside the protection of the First Amendment. In order for a statute that places limits on speech based on its content to be found Constitutional, it must pass strict scrutiny analysis as set forth in United States v. O’Brien (1968). [1] [2]
Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. [1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment.
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)