Sentences with phrase «not protected speech»

I can easily see the intentional infliction of emotional distress through invasion of privacy being deemed to be not protected speech.

Sexist speech itself is not illegal, but the usual restrictions apply - insulting people is not protected speech in Germany, see StGB § 185 - 187 (German text).

What I do it point out that David Rose is in such a position that his whoopsies are not mere misrepresentation, can not be casually dismissed as error, are not protected speech, and in sum and in total qualify by virtue of his profession, his being published, his prior bad acts and plentiful opportunities to correct errors that David Rose must be considered to be lying.

A teacher's selection of a controversial play for students is not protected speech under the First Amendment, a divided federal appeals court has ruled.

Memorialize the US Congress to support House Joint Resolution 29, the We The People Amendment, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to establish that only human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, including the right to vote, and that money is property, not protected speech.

And this man wants to curb the free speech of those who say things he does not like, rather than curb speech that is not protected speech.

When you are advocating the rounding up American citizens and putting them in concentration camps until they die off, that's not protected speech.

Yelling «Fire» in a crowded theater is NOT within the bounds of the First Amendment so it is NOT protected speech.

While the First Amendment protects the right to speech and assembly for even the most heinous groups and ideas, it does not protect speech if it calls for and is likely to lead to «imminent lawless action.»

Now a death threat isn't protected speech, and it's not really a parallel case, but I don't think it's right to claim that if you get pissed off / hurt feelings from criticism, you shouldn't speak out at all.

Not exact matches

Although Thiel implies in his essay that the Gawker story about Hogan's sex tape would not have been published by any right - thinking journalistic outlet, and that the First Amendment doesn't and shouldn't protect such behavior, two higher - court judges ruled before the Hogan decision that the Gawker piece was clearly covered by the Constitution's free - speech protections.

The appeals court reversed the decision of a lower court in Virginia that one - click actions such as Likes, as opposed to status updates and posted comments, are not speech and therefore not protected.

Rights have limits: The First Amendment prohibits laws abridging freedom of speech, but courts have not protected falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater or inciting to riot.

Notably, seven provinces opposed to the legislation, which, «in its drafting, if not in its intent, had serious and, in the view of the vast majority of witnesses, fatal flaws as to the constitutional violation of sections 92 and 91 of the British North America Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of speech, expression and association as protected by that very Charter of Rights and Freedoms,» Segal said.

But the First Amendment protects everybody, and you can't say that we are going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement,» Bloomberg said, citing the section of the Constitution that promises freedom of speech.

And if it was for religious differences, then that part of it (not the crime itself) is protected speech.

Loosely translated, this means that the First Amendment does not protect, but restricts, free speech in public schools if it is religious in nature.

But so long as they do not disrupt the disciplines of the school, and their speech is strictly student - initiated and non-curricular, their rights are scrupulously protected.

Lively, with representation by Liberty Counsel (an evangelical legal organization), responded that in both the U.S. and Uganda he exercised constitutionally protected speech rights; that he opposes violence and neither committed nor plotted any; that Uganda did not in fact pass a proposed draconian anti-gay law, and that in any case Uganda's political institutions, instead of himself, are responsible for its political decisions; and that the court lacks jurisdiction and the plaintiffs lack standing.

Though it didn't directly mention the recent refugee ban, the theme of the brief speech was protecting the «disenfranchised and marginalized.»

How many Clam marches in black or Jewish areas have been UPHELD as protected speech, NOT provocative?!! This is just one judge's choice to strike back against atheism.

Even the police would not protect the non-Muslim citizens» freedom of speech.

I'm in the military, and have no problem doing dangerous jobs to protect the free speech of people I don't agree with.

A parallel can be found in a civil right as sacred as that of free speech, which can not be infringed but does suffer some regulation: pornography, fighting words, and libel are not protected from state law by the First Amendment.

The fact that the justices agreed to hear the case means they are at least considering ruling that the speech and actions of the WBC are not constitutionally protected.

The Court of Appeals ruled that speech is not necessarily protected under the fairness ordinance.

«They don't regard perceived insults to the Prophet Mohammed or the Quran as being protected by free speech, they regard it as a capital offense,» says Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, referring to protesters in Libya and Egypt, where the U.S. Embassy was attacked, who were angered by the film.

By not giving all of the facts and claiming «responsible» freedom of speech — who are you protecting and who are you hurting?

Popular speech doesn't need protecting.

Failing to protect free - speech we will find the government becoming like the the Indian government who charge Aseem Trivedi, a political cartoonist, with sedition because... they didn't like the message.

We may not agree with what is expressed, but we should protect free speech no matter what the cost — anything less is bowing to tyranny.

In a statement, Broglio's office said: «Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army (about not reading the letter) constituted a violation of his Constitutionally - protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.»

I guess what I'm getting at is that freedom of speech is a protected right of American citizens and so this guy has a right to say whatever he wants but please don't try and dress it up in some pretty bow and claim that it isn't an attack or an attempt to prove Christians wrong.

It is not a sword driving private religious expression from the marketplace of ideas; rather, it is a shield, constraining the state to protect religiously motivated speech and action.

Since pastors are free to make political endorsements as individual citizens, just not in their official capacities as leaders of the church, supporters of the Johnson Amendment contend that rather than restricting political speech, the rules protect nonprofits from lobbying interests.

If the Westboro Baptist protests at military funerals is protected speech, then I fail to see how this isn't.

Third, free speech ought not be absolutized because the First Amendment basically protects, not the right of the press to speak, but the right of every citizen to know.

We do not have the right to be protected from offensive speech when it does not incite violence or panic.

In most civilized western countries, this pastor's remarks would qualify as hate speech and he would not have his pulpit to protect him as he does here.

Freedom of speech is protected not because we are all supposed to only say nice things about one another so we aren't forced to be violent, speech is protected precisely because people are often unwilling to hear criticism of things which they hold dear.

So, all of these people believe that people shouldn't be allowed to say insulting things, because free speech doesn't protect it?

So how has his speech not been protected?

Religious groups in this country have tried to stifle free expression in music, literature and books, but the First Amendment of the Const / itution protects free speech, as well as the freedom to worship (or not worship) as you will.

Think of all the atheist that have died protecting your rights as a US citizen, even the freedom of religion, yet now they want to use the right for freedom of speech or press, religious fanatics are claiming Atheist don't have the right

They are not illegal and are protected free speech and yes, I think they are hateful to gay people.

As frustrated as I was with Lifeway for not carrying my book, I never once complained that my civil rights were being violated or that my constitutionally - protected freedom of speech had been taken away.

The First Amendment protects our freedom of speech; it does not protect us from the consequences of the things we say.

HappyMeal The right of a woman to control her own reproductive life is like the right to free speech: You don't have to agree with how people exercise that right to still want to protect their right to do it.

But «protesting,» «displaying a sign,» «counseling,» «handing out a leaflet» in front of a «health care facility»» that is not constitutionally protected free speech.

Other groups may not experience the same conflict because they do not read the Constitution in the same way — in the way, for example, that makes no moral discrimination among the kinds of speech or the kinds of political factions that the Constitution was meant to protect.