Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments. [4] It is thought that the ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC. [5] Freedom of speech was vindicated by Erasmus and Milton. [4]
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."
A defence of free speech in an open society, the wall behind the statue is inscribed with the words "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear", words from George Orwell's proposed preface to Animal Farm (1945). (from Freedom of speech)
The first published English grammar was a Pamphlet for Grammar of 1586, written by William Bullokar with the stated goal of demonstrating that English was just as rule-based as Latin. Bullokar's grammar was faithfully modeled on William Lily's Latin grammar, Rudimenta Grammatices (1534), used in English schools at that time, having been ...
Under apartheid, freedom of speech was curtailed under apartheid legislation such as the Native Administration Act 1927 and the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950. [3] In light of South Africa's racial and discriminatory history, particularly the Apartheid era, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 precludes expression that is tantamount to the advocacy of hatred based on ...
D.V. Coornhert, Synod on the Freedom of Conscience: A Thorough Examination during the Gathering Held in the Year 1582 in the City of Freetown English translation; Richard Joseph Cooke, Freedom of thought in religious teaching (1913) Lucas Swaine, "Freedom of Thought as a Basic Liberty," Political Theory, 46:3 (2018): 405–425.
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 ...
Whether the speech is sexually vulgar or obscene (Bethel School District v. Fraser). Whether the speech, if allowed as part of a school activity or function, would be contrary to the basic educational mission of the school (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier). Each of these considerations has given rise to a separate mode of analysis, and in Morse v.