Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
During colonial times, English speech regulations were rather restrictive.The English criminal common law of seditious libel made criticizing the government a crime. Lord Chief Justice John Holt, writing in 1704–1705, explained the rationale for the prohibition: "For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it."
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 ...
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, [4] the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so. [316] State constitutions provide free speech protections similar to those of the U.S. Constitution.
The government encouraging them to remove false speech only violates the 1st Amendment if it can be proved that the government caused, and will cause in the future, speech to be blocked.
The free speech zone organized by the local government in Boston, [117] during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for citizens of the United States engaged in political activism to exercise their right of free ...
Both cases pose the question of when speech by government officials violates the First Amendment. The leading Supreme Court precedent, Bantam Books v. Sullivan, was decided in 1963.
America has a long history of defending free speech, even speech that hurts. Shutting it down now could have real repercussions for our nation. Why silencing speech, even hurtful speech, makes us ...
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.