Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Telemarketing Assoc., Inc. upheld an Illinois telemarketing anti-fraud law against claims that it was a form of prior restraint, affirming consumer protection against misrepresentation was a valid government interest justifying a free speech exception for false claims made in that context. The 2012 decision United States v.
A Distant Heritage: The Growth of Free Speech in Early America. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Godwin, Mike (1998). Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-2834-2. Rabban, David M. (1999). Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.
In essence, Free Speech Zones prevent a person from having complete mobility as a consequence of their exercising their right to speak freely. Courts have accepted time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech in the United States, but such restrictions must be narrowly tailored, and free speech zones have been the subject of lawsuits.
First Amendment jurisprudence is the longest sustained meditation on how to have free speech in a free society, and it has generally done a pretty good job of carving out reasonable exceptions to ...
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History is a non-fiction book about the history of freedom of speech in the United States, written by Michael Kent Curtis and published in 2000 by Duke University Press. The book discusses the evolution of free speech in the U.S. within the context of ...
Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. [1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment.
But Alito's support for free speech has its limits — he was a notable sole dissenter when the Supreme Court in 2011 ruled 8-1 that members of the conservative Westboro Baptist Church had a free ...