Yet, this is not
a case about free speech writ large, nor about the guaranty of a fair trial, nor about any cognizable constitutional right of public access to the courts.
Not exact matches
«In some of these
cases, the people releasing these films or cartoons are trying to make a statement
about free speech, which is fair enough,» says Bergen, referring to the film and other provocative recent depictions of Mohammed, Islam's founding prophet.
In each of these
cases, talk with your child's teacher
about the problem, and make an appointment with the school's
speech - language pathologist for a
free speech and language screening.
Whether we're talking
about free speech on Usenet, the policy questions of legitimate marketing and com - mercial activity conducted over email, or the desirable but spam - ish mes - sages that trip the filters and disappear, there is always friction not around the most egregious
case (no one argues for Leo Kuvayev's «\ / 1@gR / - \» messages) but at the blurry places where spam threatens to blend into acceptable use, and fighting one might have a deleterious effect on the other.
Lawyers recently finished arguing a potentially historic workers»
free speech case before the U.S. Supreme Court and pundits are buzzing
about Justice Neil Gorsuch's silence during the proceedings.
Congressman Clay has stated that the removal of the work, painted by Missouri student David Pulphus, violates Pulphus's right to
free speech, adding that «[t] his
case is truly
about something much bigger than a student's painting.
My initial
free -
speech interest in this
case was a personal one: I have the right to say what I said
about Mann, because it happens to be true.
Steve Huntley writes
about the Ohio
case in The Chicago Sun - Times and connects it to a broader «hostility to
free speech that ought to be worrying to Americans of all persuasions».
~ Turning to my own current preoccupation, readers and commentators assume that I see the Mann vs Steyn trial as a
free speech case simply because I think I have the right to say what I said
about his «fraudulent» hockey stick.
As for the aforementioned New York Times piece
about Peltz's lawsuit, it concludes with what may be a classic
case of understatement: «The Arkansas
case could do more than give law students practical experience before they take the bar; it could also renew debate
about free speech on campus and academic freedom.»
More to the point, she continued, was the inconsistency between Roberts» comments yesterday
about protecting
free speech and his opinion in the so - called bong hits 4 Jesus
case:
Manchester commercial litigation partner and litigation department chair Scott O'Connell authored this article
about recent
cases in New Hampshire Superior Court regarding the types of
free speech protected under the constitution.