Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The issue of school speech or curricular speech as it relates to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been the center of controversy and litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools. In the landmark decision Tinker v.
Bethel School District v. Fraser. Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the suspension of a high school student who delivered a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly. The case involved free speech in public schools .
The university says it remains committed to freedom of speech and lawful assembly. At Indiana University, protests after 11 p.m. are forbidden under a new “expressive activities policy” that ...
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A protester yells "Free Palestine" as she is handcuffed by police during a demonstration in April at the University of Texas. In the wake of pro-Palestinian protests in the spring, and after an ...
The U.S. Eight Circuit Court of appeals agrees. It just struck down a Missouri measure, adopted by petition in 2018, that restricted the ability of legislators and employees of the General ...
United States free speech exceptions. In the United States, some categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing limitations on certain categories of speech. [ 1] Categories of speech that are given lesser or no ...
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".