Sentences with phrase «of free speech for»

In a December 8, 2014 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom concluded that it violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech for The Florida...

In a December 8, 2014 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom concluded that it violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech for The Florida Bar to prevent a lawyer from using past results in advertising their services in certain media.

Brandis says he's been a fan of free speech for ages.

«I would like you to know that I very much hope the Russian authorities would support the principle of free speech for all their citizens and not feel that they have to punish you for your protest.»

Not exact matches

A number of the users whose accounts were limited after this feature was being tested complained that their free - speech rights were being restricted for no reason, just because they used a specific word.

In the past, Twitter has trumpeted its status as the «free - speech wing of the free - speech party,» the service responsible for helping topple dictators in Egypt and Libya.

Twitter has often boasted about its commitment to the principles of free speech, sometimes leading to criticism from those who felt the company was more interested in tolerating all forms of speech than in trying to ensure a harassment - free experience for its users.

Wednesday's speech from the throne, which included a promise from the federal government to institute a pick - and - pay system where consumers would be free to choose only the channels they want, has drawn a lot of flak from media commentators for being short on details, silent on major issues and overly populist.

Google is now positioning itself as a champion of free speech, a tricky claim for Microsoft to make as it continues to censor search results.

May's speech outlines how the U.K. wants to exit the EU's single market, which allows for free movement of goods, services and people.

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

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack, publications in Russia, China and Malaysia — all of which have been criticised for suppressing free speech — said the magazine was wrong to lampoon Islam.

A free - trade segment of his speech focused on his proposal for the «Reagan Economic Zone of Prosperity,» a vaguely - defined multilateral agreement that would promote free trade and punish the «cheaters,» particularly China.

As Adam Liptak has explained, these older media companies financed many of the major free speech fights of the 20th century; they saw paying for litigation as part of their business model, and as a public duty.

For all his talk about principles like openness and free speech, his leadership is better viewed as a balancing of constituencies, a reality familiar to any politician.

For the most part, the courts have sided with them, enshrining free speech as one of the country's most protected laws along the way.

More important, it's a major victory for the suppression of free speech.

That's what makes this moment so exceptional, especially for the tech brands that live in the eye of the free speech hurricane.

In the speech that urged the Alliance to embrace social conservatives, Harper also said that left - wing Canadians stand for «radical, responsibility - free individualism» and «tribalism in the form of group rights.»

As blame fell to Facebook for Trump's election, word of Facebook prototyping a censorship tool for operating in China escaped, triggering questions about its respect for human rights and free speech.

In his speech, Trump argued for the economic benefits of increased energy production, saying it would create jobs and free money to invest in infrastructure.

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.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.

Demonstrators gathered near the University of California, Berkeley campus amid a strong police presence and rallied to show support for free speech and condemn the views of Ann Coulter and her supporters.

His ban from visiting Britain in June 2009 has made him the «poster child» for free speech, not only for Americans concerned about the cultural shift towards totalitarianism and their rights to freedom of expression, but for people around the globe.

If the federal and state governments come in and slap new regulations and oversight on these companies, it's their own fault for practicing elitist arrogance in an attempt to shape a specific narrative that damages the very fabric of a society where the first amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the rights of free expression and free speech.

Constitutional Amendment 1: «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»

Facebook doesn't like to decide what kind of rhetoric is appropriate or inappropriate for fear of encroaching on its users» free speech rights.

Well, if you're a tech company, then it's much easier to regulate your product without worries about infringing on free speech and freedom of the press, particularly if it can be proven that Facebook is bad for mental health and perhaps even for democracy.

I mentioned the ninth amendment for one reason, one can not use ones free speech to disparage the right of free religion of another.

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.»

Critics argue the law suppresses free speech and makes South Korea like its northern counterpart, known for its human rights abuses and oppression of religious and political minorities.

When the U.S. Muslim community sounds out LOUD and CLEAR, without equivocation, and immediately against all forms of terrorism, including all aggressive religious intolerance for human rights, women's right, children, equal protection under the law, the respect for other religions to coexist, the right to free speech, and the ability to separate church from state, IF THEY FINALLY DO THAT AND LOUDLY, then we will begin to feel comfortable that they are truly embracing American ideals and here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold dear.

So many people who advocate or speak publicly for political or personal reasons aren't acknowledged as much when it comes to religion when someone is wanting to speak out about there faith a light bulb goes off and says we don't want to hear, or talk, or, air any thing that has to do with the mentioning of God but because of the high profile story and because this is the President of the United States it's ok hats off to them for not being ashamed to speak about there faith I agree with Richard some people just because they profess there faith doesn't mean there trying to push there beliefs on anyone people of faith have a right to free speech also.

The prestige media is generally blind to its own belligerency in the culture war; it champions as courageous the exercise of free speech that is vituperative and slanderous while simultaneously calling for civility, and condemning as uncivil even the measured responses of those who are slandered.

The entire staff of CNN has been forced to convert to mormonism ahead of the election out of fear of what concentration camp they will go in for their belief in free speech if romney wins.

A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional limits of free speech and privacy.

Imans on a worldwide daily basis call for the extermination of non-Muslims but are allowed to get away with their hateful fatwas on the basis of free speech which of course they deny to any group other than themselves.

Besides, are you suggesting that we suppress anyone's right to free speech because if you are than you need to move to one of these bass ackward countries where a less than middle school quality production of a total farce can insight people to act as a pack of rabid dogs blaming America for why they live in dirt... We are LUCKY and BLESSED to live in a land where we can smile and walk away from an opinion that we disagree with... that South Park can but Jesus in a boxing ring against Satan and depict Moses as a glowing spinning dreidl... and these nutcases want to burn and pillage because one lunatic makes a childish and stupid play on videotape?

«This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom,» said Chris Brook of the ACLU.

If I am to have a right to free speech, for example, then I must be empowered to speak and be heard, which means using the power of the state to give me the resources I need and to suppress anything that might disempower me.

Free speech and all the other protections of our constitution were meant for the loyal citizens of the United States and their honorable foreign guests.

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.

I love free speech but, those in positions of authority who advocate hate, bigotry and acts of violence against others should be held criminally accountable for what they say.

For you to be «American enough,» as you put it, you must accept the fact that most of us will exercise our free speech and say that I do not believe a word that you posted has any truth to it.

And, having devoted much of my time at Princeton to fighting for free speech, I am glad to see you, my friends, exercising your First Amendment rights and voicing your dissent.

We have rights to free speech just as you do and I, for one, am SICK TO DEATH of hearing just your side of things!

I mean free speech was one of the things that our ancestors fought the British Crown for....

I think we should create a new holiday, and call it parody Mohammad day, in memory of those who died for exercising free speech.

The American value honoring free speech doesn't preclude condemnation of the speech, only that there should be no legal punishment for it.