Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
To determine whether a content-based law passes constitutional muster, courts generally apply a legal standard called strict scrutiny, under which the government must show that the law is the “least restrictive means” of advancing a “compelling” governmental interest. Sable Commc’ns of Cal. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).
Under a strict scrutiny analysis, a law that restricts freedom of speech must achieve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest or be the least speech-restrictive means available to the government.
Amendment scrutiny: strict and intermediate scrutiny. These levels of scrutiny are tests that courts may use in deciding whether a law or government action affecting speech rights comports with the Free Speech Clause. The next section of the report discusses the differences between facial
To ensure narrow tailoring, the Court developed the standard of strict scrutiny when reviewing free speech cases. To satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must show that the law meets a compelling government interest and that the regulation is being implemented using the least restrictive means.
The core division at the heart of current free speech doctrine separates regulations that are content based from those that are content neutral. 11 Regulations that distinguish speech on the basis of its content are subject to strict scrutiny, whereas those that are neutral with respect to the content of the regulated speech are evaluated under ...
Religious objections to compelled speech about political matters were “well known to the framers of the Bill of Rights.” Put it together and the stage may be set for a substantial clarification of free-speech jurisprudence—one more grounded in the text and history of the First Amendment.
se their right of free expression. As public speech shifts from traditional locations such as streets and parks to harder-to-define realms such as the internet, the need for a flexible and finely tuned doctrine to balance free expression with the government’s reasonable need to .
heightened scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause, declaring in 1943 that “freedoms of speech and of press . . . are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the
Strict scrutiny is directly relevant to laws imposing prior restraint because such laws limit free speech, which is a fundamental right. When courts evaluate these laws, they apply strict scrutiny to ensure that the government has a compelling reason for restricting speech and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.
As discussed in Part III, for regulations of speech in a government-owned non-public forum, or speech supported by government grants or subsidies, the Court uses strict scrutiny for viewpoint discrimination, and “reasonableness” balancing for subject-matter and content-neutral regulations.