Tech24 Deals Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the Tech24 Deals Content Network
  2. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

    I, XIV. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. [ 1][ 2] The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public ...

  3. United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech...

    United States free speech exceptions. In the United States, some categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing limitations on certain categories of speech. [ 1] Categories of speech that are given lesser or no ...

  4. Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

    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. [1] 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".

  5. Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the...

    A Distant Heritage: The Growth of Free Speech in Early America. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Godwin, Mike (1998). Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-2834-2. Rabban, David M. (1999). Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  6. United States v. Alvarez - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

    Laws applied. U.S. Const. amend. United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was unconstitutional. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal.

  7. What the Supreme Court Snapchat decision means for free ...

    www.engadget.com/snapchat-supreme-court-online...

    An expletive-filled Snapchat Story has become the basis for a Supreme Court ruling on free speech. The Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania public school violated the First Amendment rights of ...

  8. Abbott's order will curb campus free speech in Texas, not ...

    www.aol.com/abbotts-order-curb-campus-free...

    And when it comes to speech, they can sanction expression falling within one of the narrow categories of speech unprotected by the First Amendment, such as true threats, incitement to violence, or ...

  9. Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Voting...

    The U.S. Congress enacted major amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. Each of these amendments coincided with an impending expiration of some of the Act's special provisions, which originally were set to expire by 1970. However, in recognition of the voting discrimination that continued despite the Act ...