Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Cases that consider the First Amendment implications of payments mandated by the state going to use in part for speech by third parties Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1978) Chicago Local Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n ...
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state ...
A conservative panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found that this amounted to a violation of the 1st Amendment. But 6-3, the Supreme Court ordered the case dismissed for lack ...
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public high school could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a ...
McConnell v. FEC (2003) (in part) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment ...
In case there was any doubt that Wu's beef is with the First Amendment itself, as opposed to any particular application of it, he closes by quoting Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson: "If the ...
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit cited Tinker in the 2013 court case Hardwick v. Heyward to rule that prohibiting a student from wearing Confederate flag shirt did not violate the First Amendment because there was evidence that the shirt could cause disruption. [17] Exceptions to this are the 2010 court case Defoe v.