Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Constitution (Seventy-first Amendment) Act, 1992, was introduced in Lok Sabha on 20 August 1992, as the Constitution (Seventy-eighth Amendment) Bill, 1992 (Bill No. 142 of 1992). It was introduced by Shankarrao Chavan , then Minister of Home Affairs, and sought to include Konkani, Meitei and Nepali languages in the Eighth Schedule of the ...
The First Amendment did not excuse newspapers from the Sherman Antitrust Act. News, traded between states, counts as interstate commerce and is subject to the act. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests (326 U.S. 20 [clarification needed]).
Amend schedule 7. [54] 2 February 1983 Amendment to negate judicial pronouncements on scope and applicability on Sales Tax. Zail Singh: 47th: Amend schedule 9. [55] 26 August 1984 Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution. 48th: Amend article 356. [56] 1 April 1985
Cases that consider the First Amendment implications of payments mandated by the state going to use in part for speech by third parties Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1978) Chicago Local Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n ...
This is why the First Amendment is not relevant in regards to Twitter’s ban on the former president, he says, because just like the hypothetical restaurant, Twitter is a private business.
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct.
The Supreme Court has largely interpreted the Petition Clause as coextensive with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, but in its 2010 decision in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2010) it acknowledged that there may be differences between the two: This case arises under the Petition Clause, not the Speech Clause.
The order also explained that the Carlin routine was "patently offensive" and "deliberately broadcast" at a time when minors could have been listening, which were forbidden per the Communications Act of 1934. [1] Pacifica Foundation challenged the declaratory order, on First Amendment grounds, to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.