Not exact matches
And how's that
free speech looking for you?
Lets
look at the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.
Look at the commnents that you have given Bob alone????? I am all
for free speech, but seriously any one of you that sticks up
for Tom Tom is just a sick as he is.
While many aspects of the
speech have already been leaked, like
free tuition
for many SUNY and CUNY students and better public cybersecurity, local state legislators are
looking for other possible proposals.
Christie, along with Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, were the subjects of Canadian Lawyer's March 2009 cover story «War of the Words,» which
looked at the battle between the
free speech advocate and the push
for laws outlawing hate.
The IRS denial, in short, hinges on the applicant's activities
looking too much like a
for - profit trade or business and also the following not qualifying as «charitable» --(1) preserving the fundamental human rights set forth in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (b / c it is a declaration, not a treaty or law) and (2) safeguarding
free speech in foreign countries (as the US Constitution's guarantee of
free speech does not apply to residents or citizens of foreign countries).
I'm
looking for the latter - a differential account of how different countries address the question «that hurts» (with it's application to hatred as an exception to
free speech)
Continuing on his meme of a few weeks ago, blogfather Volokh takes a long
look at Sweden's incomplete protection
for free speech (in this case, a «hate
speech» against homosexuality), and provides a little historical perspective
for a logic - based (and refreshingly non-PC) reality check:
And at its worst, it can
look like this: a clueless «ORM» guy, working
for a lawyer, calling up other lawyers — lawyers who regularly blog on
free speech issues — to make bumptious threats to sue them
for writing about his client.