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".
The test, as set forth in the Tinker opinion, asks the question: Did the speech or expression of the student "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," or might it "reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference ...
The Ninth Circuit, analyzing the likelihood of success on the merits requirement for a preliminary injunction, affirmed the decision of the district court, holding that the town's restrictions for temporary directional signs "did not regulate speech on the basis of content" [28] Although the Ninth Circuit conceded that enforcement officers ...
A police officer approached Muniz, who was in his car, suspecting him of driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer asked Muniz several questions and directed Muniz to perform sobriety tests, including “a ‘horizontal gaze nystagmus’ test, a ‘walk and turn’ test, and a ‘one leg stand’ test.” [5] After Muniz admitted to drinking, the officer arrested him and took him to ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday in a decision on free speech in the digital age set a new standard for determining if public officials acted in a governmental capacity when ...
Because this Court holds that the U.S. Supreme Court unequivocally rejected any reporter’s privilege rooted in the First Amendment or common law in the context of a grand jury acting in good faith, this Court denies the motions to quash. Civil cases, as opposed to criminal cases, have been held not to come under the Branzburg test. [7]
Brandeis wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Holmes, that many scholars have lauded as perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written by a member of the Supreme Court. [2] [8] [9] Brandeis deviated significantly from prevailing judicial thought on the First Amendment, and applied free speech to the democratic process. He held ...
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v.California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. [1]