enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. United States v. Alvarez - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

    United States v. Alvarez , 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal.

  3. Stolen Valor Act of 2005 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005

    Struck down by United States v. Alvarez in a 6–3 decision on June 28, 2012 The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 , signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, [ 1 ] was a U.S. law that broadened the provisions of previous U.S. law addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals .

  4. Stolen Valor Act of 2013 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2013

    The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113–12 (text); H.R. 258) is a United States federal law that was passed by the 113th United States Congress.The law amends the federal criminal code to make it a crime for a person to fraudulently claim having received a valor award specified in the Act, with the intention of obtaining money, property, or other tangible benefit by convincing another that ...

  5. The AOL.com video experience serves up the best video content from AOL and around the web, curating informative and entertaining snackable videos.

  6. List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    False speech. United States v. Alvarez (2012) Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014) ... Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) Public employees

  7. False statements of fact - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact

    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 ...

  8. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc._v._Wilson

    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 ...

  9. Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Film_Corp._v...

    Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling by a 9–0 vote that the free speech protection of the Ohio Constitution, which was substantially similar to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, did not extend to motion pictures.