Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Many stakeholders have argued in favor of legal protections being defined in connection with 'acts of journalism', rather than through the definition of the professional functions of a journalist. Some countries are broadening the legal definition of 'journalist' to ensure adequate protection for citizen reporters (working on and offline).
Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications.
Under this approach, citizens "have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard". [155] Advocates of collective rights models argued that the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias, rather than to secure an individual right to possess ...
The Second Amendment states that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,”. [68] It has been one of the most controversial rights in the Bill of Rights-notable cases consist of United States v. Miller (1934), Printz v.
Anonymity [a] describes situations where the acting person's identity is unknown. Some writers have argued that namelessness, though technically correct, does not capture what is more centrally at stake in contexts of anonymity. The important idea here is that a person be non-identifiable, unreachable, or untrackable. [1]
The text of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution, ratified July 9, 1868, states that: "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is ...
The history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause follows a broad arc, beginning with approximately 100 years of little attention, then taking on a relatively narrow view of the governmental restrictions required under the clause, growing into a much broader view in the 1960s, and later again receding.
The United States Department of Justice created self-imposed guidelines intended to protect journalists by regulating the use of subpoenas against the press. These guidelines state that the government "should have made all reasonable attempts to obtain the information from alternative, non-media sources” before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media. [4]