Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On entry across borders, the government may bar non-citizens from the United States based on their speech, even if that speech would have been protected if said by a citizen. [84] Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. [85] Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red ...
Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is a type of speech which is not legally protected. It is speech to which all the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ...
Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with non-verbal free speech and its protections under the First Amendment.The Court, in a per curiam decision, ruled that a Washington state law that banned the display of the American flag adorned with additional decorations was unconstitutional as it violated protected speech.
Respecting free speech defends individual rights and lets people show us who they are. Skip to main content. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to ...
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.
The cases have also varied on what contexts – such as the reaction of hearers (public officials, police officers, ordinary citizens) – make a difference for the limits on protected speech. [5] A particularly provocative example occurred in Cohen v.
That's not protected free speech. Show comments. Advertisement. Advertisement. In Other News. Entertainment. Entertainment. Yahoo News. Our favorite Super Bowl 2025 commercials so far. Entertainment.
Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v.