Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may advance its speech without requiring viewpoint neutrality when the government itself is the speaker. Thus, when the state is the speaker, it may make content based choices. The simple principle has broad implications, and has led to contentious disputes within the Supreme Court. [1]
English: Executive Order 14146: Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. This Executive Order was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. See also: List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump.
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."
Forum analysis versus government speech doctrine [ edit ] In several important cases, courts have decided that what appeared to be viewpoint-based censorship in a forum was actually the government's tailoring of its own speech , which need not be viewpoint neutral, and that no forum was in fact created.
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v.
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States [1] that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger".
Des Moines ruling was a landmark affirmation of students' expression liberty from government censorship. To this day, free speech champions cite it in their noble advocacy. But the lesson of Tinker v.
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 ...