Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Dogri had been recognised by Sahitya Akademi in the year 1969, [10] long before it was recognised by the Ninety-second Amendment of the Constitution of India in 2003. [11] [12] Manipuri had been recognised by Sahitya Akademi in the year 1971, [10] [13] long before it was recognised by the Seventy-first Amendment of the Constitution of India in ...
Case history; Prior: 278 A.D. 253, 104 N.Y.S.2d 740 (App. Div. 1951), affirmed, 303 N.Y. 242, 101 N.E.2d 665 (1951).Holding; Provisions of the New York Education Law that allow a censor to forbid the commercial showing of any non-licensed motion picture film, or revoke or deny the license of a film deemed to be "sacrilegious", were a "restraint on freedom of speech", and thereby a violation of ...
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that enhanced penalties for hate crimes do not violate criminal defendants' First Amendment rights. [14] It was a landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation. [15]
In a 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court extended the full protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in Reno v. ACLU, a decision that struck down portions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a law that prohibited "indecent" online communication. The court's decision extended the constitutional protections given to books, magazines ...
The Seventy-first Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Seventy-first Amendment) Act, 1992, amended the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution so as to include Konkani, Meitei (officially called "Manipuri") and Nepali languages, thereby raising the total number of languages listed in the schedule to eighteen.
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amnesty International USA and others lacked standing to challenge section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. § 1881a), as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.
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.
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography [1] (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child ...