Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The use of public forums generally cannot be restricted based on the content of the speech expressed by the user. Use can be restricted based on content, however, if the restriction passes a strict scrutiny test for a traditional and designated forum or the reasonableness test for a limited forum. Also, public forums can be restricted as to the ...
A "limited public forum" may "reserve its forum for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics" but because the exclusion of the Good News Club discriminated against a viewpoint, the Court did not rule on whether the restriction was "unreasonable reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum". [1] Applying Lamb's Chapel v.
“California’s universities are typically viewed as public or limited public forums where the public can be invited.” ... Though occupying a non-public forum can be considered civil ...
A designated forum is usually public property the government opens for public expression, such as theatres and state schools. [40] The difference between traditional public forums and designated public forums is in a designated public forum the government may limit access to the area to only certain groups, speakers, or subjects, so long as ...
“To the contrary, First Amendment cases have long recognized that some settings are ‘limited public forums,’ where restrictions on speech are constitutional so long as they are viewpoint ...
The Government may not discriminate against a given point of view in a limited public forum, a government-created space wherein speech might occur according to the government's guidelines. "The necessity of confining a forum to the limited and legitimate purposes for which it was created may justify the State in reserving it for certain groups ...
The NIH had been deleting all social media comments containing words like animal, testing, and cruel.
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public high school could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a ...