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 ...
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
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.
The questions during Verrilli's argument focused on the lack of injury caused by false claims of military honors. [12] In nearly all the cases that the United States cited to support the proposition that there is no First Amendment value in falsity, the Court had addressed a false statement that harmed another, such as a defamatory statement.
The right to life is the belief that a human (or other animal) has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity. The concept of a right to life arises in debates on issues including: capital punishment, with some people seeing it as immoral; abortion, with some considering the killing of a human embryo or fetus immoral; euthanasia, in which the decision to end ...
Kimport described another person she interviewed who initially tried to get an abortion at 11 weeks but lived in a state where Medicaid wouldn’t cover abortions, and she didn’t have enough ...
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]
Another inaccurate number about the border wall Returning to one of his regular exaggerations , Trump claimed that “we built 571 miles of border wall” during his presidency.