Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Distant Heritage: The Growth of Free Speech in Early America. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Godwin, Mike (1998). Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-2834-2. Rabban, David M. (1999). Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies". [25] Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change.
The explicitly defined liberties make up the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to privacy. [2] There are also many liberties of people not defined in the Constitution , as stated in the Ninth Amendment : The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or ...
The right to freedom of speech is not explicitly protected by common law in New Zealand, but is encompassed in various doctrines aimed at protecting free speech. [110] An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combine to ensure a degree of freedom of speech and of the press. [ 111 ]
Democracy requires free speech because it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. [179] Restrictions on free speech are only permissible when the speech at issue is likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive ...
In the free speech context, intermediate scrutiny is the test or standard of review that courts apply when analyzing content-neutral speech versus content-based speech. Content-based speech is reviewed under strict scrutiny in which courts evaluate the value of the subject matter or the content of the communication.
The comma between the word "Arms" and "shall" also has been involved in debate centered around the meaning and interpretation of this one comma between the two words. [ 215 ] [ 216 ] [ 29 ] Some argue that "...long-standing British tradition minimized punctuation's effect on laws" and that therefore this comma has little significance on the ...
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]