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]
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."
In political science, the Copenhagen School adopts speech act as a form of felicitous speech act (or simply 'facilitating conditions'), whereby the speaker, often politicians or players, act in accordance to the truth but in preparation for the audience to take action in the directions of the player that are driven or incited by the act.
The government encouraging them to remove false speech only violates the 1st Amendment if it can be proved that the government caused, and will cause in the future, speech to be blocked.
The high school principal seized the banner and suspended Frederick because the banner was perceived to advocate the use of illegal drugs. The Supreme Court held that a principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
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 ...
Speech by students in public secondary schools Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) Healy v. James (1972) Board of Education v. Pico (1982) Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Morse v. Frederick (2007) Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)
National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Amendments Amended several aspects of the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act Pub. L. 95–166: 1977 (No short title) Amended the Higher Education Act to grant the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands the same benefits under the act as states.