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 ...
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant.
Protected concerted activity extends to individual employees in some situations. Typically, an individual employee can be acting in concert when that employee is acting on behalf of or as a representative of at least one other co-worker. Their actions must address general workplace conditions or bring attention to a group complaint. [15]
During colonial times, English speech regulations were rather restrictive.The English criminal common law of seditious libel made criticizing the government a crime. Lord Chief Justice John Holt, writing in 1704–1705, explained the rationale for the prohibition: "For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it."
Workplace communication is the process of communicating and exchanging information (both verbal and non-verbal) between one person/group and another person/group within an organization. It includes e-mails, text messages, notes, calls, etc. [ 1 ] Effective communication is critical in getting the job done, as well as building a sense of trust ...
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.
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 ...
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]