Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
However, the government has exerted pressure indirectly. With the exception of child pornography, content restrictions tend to rely on platforms to remove/suppress content, following state encouragement or the threat of legal action. [3] [1] Intellectual property protections yielded a system that predictably removes infringing materials.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech.
Judicial rulings often result in the forced removal of content from the Internet. [56] Brazilian legislation restricts the freedom of expression (Paim Law), directed especially to publications considered racist (such as neo-nazi sites). The Brazilian Constitution also prohibits anonymity of journalists. [57]
This is true even when pursuing a public purpose such as exercising police powers or passing legislation. The Constitution, however, only protects against state actors. Invasions of privacy by individuals can only be remedied under previous court decisions. The First Amendment protects the right to free assembly, broadening privacy rights.
The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. [1] [failed verification] [2] Over 185 national constitutions mention the right to privacy. [3]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Former President Donald Trump has called for a change to the Constitution, saying that a vice president who tries to cover up a president's incapacity should be impeached immediately and removed ...
Amazon.com removed WikiLeaks from its servers on 1 December 2010 U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, among the members of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who had questioned Amazon in private communication on the company's hosting of WikiLeaks and the illegally obtained documents, commended Amazon for the action. [80]