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 ...
A Distant Heritage: The Growth of Free Speech in Early America. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Godwin, Mike (1998). Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-2834-2. Rabban, David M. (1999). Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.
According to one scholar, hate speech complaints are up on campuses everywhere, pressuring universities to create speech codes of their own. He states: There were approximately 75 hate speech codes in place at U.S. colleges and universities in 1990; by 1991, the number grew to over 300.
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, [4] the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so. [316] State constitutions provide free speech protections similar to those of the U.S. Constitution.
Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. [1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment.
Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that for a restraint of trade to be lawful, it must be ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract. A naked restraint on trade is unlawful; it is not a defense that the restraint is reasonable.
The nonprofits handing out the pipes say it’s about “harm reduction” — effectively an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” approach to the drug crisis.
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 ...