Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Some anti-boycott measures are enforced by law. For example, anti-boycott provisions in the Export Administration Act of 1979 and Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976 in the United States forbid US companies and their subsidiaries from complying with or supporting a foreign country's boycott of another country unless the US also approves of the boycott.
Plain Dealer Publishing Company, the Ohio Supreme Court held that its four-factor test for determining if speech would be afforded an opinion privilege remained the law in Ohio, despite the ...
Telemarketing Assoc., Inc. upheld an Illinois telemarketing anti-fraud law against claims that it was a form of prior restraint, affirming consumer protection against misrepresentation was a valid government interest justifying a free speech exception for false claims made in that context. The 2012 decision United States v.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), [1] was a landmark decision [2] of the United States Supreme Court ruling 8–0 (Marshall did not participate in the decision) that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they cannot prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically motivated boycott.
Although Ohio State spokesperson Ben Johnson took pains to emphasize the university’s “unwavering commitment to freedom of speech," I cannot help but wonder if this is really an example of the ...
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in ...