Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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."
The free speech zone organized by the local government in Boston, [117] during the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for citizens of the United States engaged in political activism to exercise their right of free ...
America has a long history of defending free speech, even speech that hurts. Shutting it down now could have real repercussions for our nation. Why silencing speech, even hurtful speech, makes us ...
Internet censorship in the United States of America is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States.The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.
Encryption is a privacy issue and, by extension, a free-speech issue—if people can’t communicate in private, they don’t feel free to fully express themselves. So this case does touch on free ...
This wrinkly legume from South America underwent a recent boom in the fine-dining world due to its notes of vanilla, almond, and cinnamon, but it has actually been illegal in the U.S. since 1954.
While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973) in which the court found that Hess's words were protected under "his rights to free speech ", [ 3 ] in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite ...