Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Fexofenadine is used for relief from physical symptoms associated with seasonal allergic rhinitis and for treatment of hives, including chronic urticaria. [12] It does not cure, but rather prevents the aggravation of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria, and reduces the severity of the symptoms associated with those conditions, providing relief from repeated sneezing, runny nose ...
Sullivan, [4] government-funded doctors in a government health program were not allowed to advise patients on obtaining abortions, and the doctors challenged this law on Free Speech grounds. [1] However, the Court held that because the program was government-funded, the doctors were, therefore, speaking on behalf of the government.
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 ...
This category includes court cases that deal with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, providing that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v.
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)
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.