Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in ...
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography [1] (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child ...
While Central Hudson is used to determine when governments can restrict commercial speech, Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), established a constitutional standard where the government can mandate commercial speech, in the form of disclaimers, as long as the information is "purely factual ...
United States v. Williams , 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury . It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
Sep. 17—Boys from Joplin and Carthage and a boy and a girl from Neosho are among 11 alleged victims of past sexual abuse by Catholic Church officials cited in a lawsuit filed last week against ...
However, the Court subsequently rejected the notion of a First Amendment opinion privilege, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). In Gertz, the Supreme Court also established a mens rea or culpability requirement for defamation; states cannot impose strict liability because that would run afoul of the First Amendment. This ...
Adams v. United States, 407 U.S. 143 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that tips from a known informant can create enough reasonable suspicion to justify a patdown under Terry v. Ohio.
He was arrested Thursday in Ohio and will appear in federal court in Boston at a later date. In addition to his alleged atrocities in Rwanda, charges also pertain to Nshimiye’s false testimony ...