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 ...
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied. [ citation needed ] The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the third prong is based on "whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole".
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights. Edward Lane sued Steve Franks for unfairly firing him, out of retaliation for sworn testimony Lane gave during a federal fraud case. [1]
For example, in Austria, defaming Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is not protected as free speech. [45] [46] [47] In contrast, in France, blasphemy and disparagement of Muhammad are protected under free speech law. Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example, speech codes at state-operated ...
A speech code is any rule or regulation that limits, restricts, or bans speech beyond the strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press found in the legal definitions of harassment, slander, libel, and fighting words. Such codes are common in the workplace, in universities, [1] and in private organizations. The term may be applied to ...
Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law. A related legal concept is protected speech . Just as freedom of speech protects free expression, in many cases it similarly protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which that individual disagrees.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. [4]