Sentences with phrase «of free speech by»

The author has written all members of the Supreme Court and submitted a request that the Court reconsider that rule, and amend it to limit its interpretation by the KBA Bar Counsel's office as authority for the restriction of free speech by lawyers.

Meanwhile, he became a champion of free speech by defending bloggers threatened by censorious douchebags.

«We support the right of free speech by the protesters to Omer Fast's exhibition at the gallery,» the gallery said in an email.

«They're being punished for the exercise of free speech by CNN.

Not exact matches

Of course, the social network is a corporation controlled by its shareholders (primarily Mark Zuckerberg), and therefore it isn't required to adhere to the free - speech dictates of the First AmendmenOf course, the social network is a corporation controlled by its shareholders (primarily Mark Zuckerberg), and therefore it isn't required to adhere to the free - speech dictates of the First Amendmenof the First Amendment.

Since his identity as Hogan's backer was revealed, Thiel's crusade against Gawker has been decried by a number of prominent journalists and defenders of a free press, who note that a billionaire bankrupting a media outlet as part of a personal vendetta raises serious questions about free speech.

By contrast, in Louisiana — reflecting the incredible tension over slavery and existential fear of revolt — «it was a capital crime to print or distribute material, or to make a speech or display a sign, or even to have a private conversation, that might spread discontent among the free black population or insubordination among slaves.»

Meanwhile, other big digital newcomers to the media scene, including BuzzFeed and Business Insider, have also been slow to take up the public interest banner long carried by the likes of the New York Times and the Press - Enterprise (a small California paper that, as Liptak explained, took two free speech cases all the way to the Supreme Court in the 1980s).

She was accused of suppressing free speech by approving the ban of nude pictures and revenge porn on the site, and by shutting down discussion forums called subreddits that had been specifically created to harass others.

Many people are offended by the article while others believe free speech of the independent newspaper needs to be respected.

For precisely the same reasons that I found your statement to be laughable, the government must insure that mechanisms are put in place to insure that the actual persons granted free speech rights by the Supreme Court (the owners of the corporations) are the ones actually exercising their new rights instead of having those rights stolen by fat - cat executives and self - appointed boards.

Part of what explains why the United States has been so reluctant to enact regulations on the internet and technology is the matter of free speech, as mandated by the US Constitution.

«When you have freedom of speech and freedom of expression and don't get thrown in jail by criticizing a bad idea, it's more likely bad ideas will get exposed, and it's not a coincidence oppressive regimes are also oppressive in clamping down on free speech.»

«Despite the level of hysteria and partisanship in American politics, we are surprised and disappointed by the unprecedented attack on a media company by an organization that purports to value free speech,» American Media officials said in a statement Tuesday about the Common Cause complaint.

«Despite the level of hysteria and partisanship in American politics, we are surprised and disappointed by the unprecedented attack on a media company by an organization that purports to value free speech,» the company's statement said.

The home - rental site filed a lawsuit Monday (June 27) in federal court alleging rules recently passed by the city of San Francisco violate free speech and privacy laws.

I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»

Laycock's hypothesis ripened into full - blown suspicion by June 2000 when Justice Stevens took the position that the free speech rights of the Boy Scouts were not violated by a state law requiring them to employ an avowed homosexual as an assistant scoutmaster.

Until now free speech claims have been safe against such erosions, by a virtual consensus of our legal culture that political speech needs most protection precisely when it offends.

Thu - mping bible babble anywhere is part of our right to free speech guaranteed by the Const - itution.

Its first amendment was based on God of the bibles law that every man and woman were created equal... It gives us free will and freedom of speech... Without this nation being founded by the Christian principles this country would look like Syria in shambles and we would be in fear...

I think that you abuse the opportunity of free speech and the nature of rational thinking by proselytising.

The customary term for this kind of exegesis is allegory, a word first introduced into Christian speech by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians: «It is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.

«It is another attempt by a Government to clamp down on free speech in the guise of combating extremism.

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.

Please don't be watching peoples comments on this site so you can categorise and pigeon - hole us into your groups, that will lead to the cessation of free speech here — not all of us know everything, we are often learning by the process of conversation and don't have lots of black and white answers figured out.

Some of you may think that we are giving up our right to free speech by giving in to the extremists.

But that freedom is just one of many that we enjoy in the United States — and religious tolerance is no more, or less, valuable than are rights to free speech, to bear arms, to be free from search and seizure, to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, to be tried by our peers, to have our day in court, to not be imprisoned or fined without cause, to ensure State's rights, to be free from slavery and involuntary servitude, and on, and on, and on.

«We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.»

Spelled out in a lengthy lead editorial entitled «Evangelicals in the Social Struggle,» as well as in books such as Aspects of Christian Social Ethics, Henry's understanding of Christian social responsibility stressed (a) society's need for the spiritual regeneration of all men and women, (b) an interim social program of humanitarian care, ethical proclamation, and personal, structural application, and (c) a theory of limited government centering on certain «freedom rights,» e. g., the rights to public property, free speech, and so on.18 Though the shape of this social ethic thus closely parallels that of the present editorial position of Moody Monthly, it must be distinguished from its counterpart by the time period involved (it pushed others like Moody Monthly into a more active involvement in the social arena), by the intensity of its commitment to social responsibility, by the sophistication of its insight into political theory and practice, and by its willingness to offer structural critique on the American political system.

However, we, as Americans should know better about the ramifications of our actions before we use our wonderful right of «free speech» as it could possibly get someone killed by some murderous fanatic half way around the world, or... even possibly here in our own country.

@Kevin, by your logic, if a group of Muslims want to have something to commemorate those who flew the planes into the building, that would simply be free speech.

Most scholars praise Jackson for «widening» the reach of his opinion by converting the religious freedom claim into a free speech claim, and the decision is routinely treated as one of the strongest vindications of civil liberties in twentieth - century American law.

«This was a deeply misguided attempt by the City Council to attack free speech simply because they disagreed with our point of view.

If Russia's neighbors were Canada and Mexico, rather than Germany, China, Turkey, and Poland, and if its other flanks were guarded by thousands of miles of open ocean, it might have free institutions and long traditions of free speech and the rule of law.

Editor's Note: CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears files this report from Washington, DC The Supreme Court struggled Wednesday to find a constitutional balance between free speech and privacy in a case involving provocative anti-homosexual protests by a small church at the funeral of a soldier who died in Iraq.

Dworkin argues that the support of free speech as a requirement for democracy demands, by its own logic, «some threshold line to be drawn between interpretations of the First Amendment that would protect and those that would invade democracy.»

«After 30 years of the so - called conservative leaders who have been elected by evangelicals, none of them thought to advocate for the repeal of the Johnson amendment, giving evangelical leaders political free speech,» Jerry Falwell Jr., Liberty University president and early Trump endorser, toldTime magazine.

James Madison, that staunch advocate of free speech, insisted that the right of people to speak and to listen is not an end in itself, but is a means of achieving «popular government,» by which he meant the democratic process whereby people have the opportunity to take a real part in the decisions which affect their lives.

This «Fairness Doctrine» has become the foundation of free speech on radio and television, and it has prevented many of the more blatant attempts by some broadcasters to use the public airwaves as nothing more than a sounding board for their own special views and interests.

On any given day, in 2012, I witness free speech more by citizens of the UK than here in the US.

Perhaps a much simpler, material life, simpler, that is, compared to present middle - class American standards, would result, but it would not be accompanied by an abandonment of free inquiry or free speech.

Informational self - determination (encompassing free speech, freedom to receive and seek information, the right to control person - related information, the right to confidentiality of communication, and the right to refuse information) is threatened by the fashionable Information Superhighway project.

The state or local government displaying a scene from someone's holy book is NOT free speech, it is explicitly prohibited by the constitution as an «endorsement of a religion».

But although Twitter, hailed by many as a powerful enabler of free speech, is taking its first step toward limiting hate speech, some groups say it still has a long way to go.

By throwing millions at various diversity initiatives, university administrators propitiate the idols of diversity and tolerance while contributing to a climate that actively undermines the ability of students and faculty alike to engage in free speech and debate in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

But giving your mom a speech about how you are morally superior to her for not eating animals is false logic, considering the slave labor used to produce your fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other delicious animal - free ingredients (coffee, sugar, bananas, mangos, berries, peaches, and cashews are just a few examples of foods imported from the third world where workers are severely mistreated and underpaid, or farmed by underpaid Mexican immigrants in the US).

Most recently, North School Park was the setting for the expression of free speech in September 2011 when the Park District approved a park usage application submitted by Father Correy Brost of St. Viator High School to host an interfaith service for peace in remembrance of the 10th anniversary of the tragedy at the World Trade Center.

Going by what is happening at the global stage, there is again, a telling proof that «for democracy to succeed, a relative level of literacy, a growing middle class, and political institutions that support free speech and human rights is desirable.

Perhaps over-exploring the principles of freedom of expression and free speech and candid independent opinion, some leading members of the party poured their hearts out on several vexed matters including what they termed a uni-polar power bloc control and grips of the party especially by the presidential candidate, «Dr».