Sentences with phrase «of protected speech»

Mr. Shafir focuses his practice on two areas at the cutting edge of California law: (1) the law of protected speech, including the First Amendment, defamation, California's anti-SLAPP statute, and the litigation privilege; and (2) the defense of class and representative actions, often through resisting class certification efforts or the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Jackson said Mckesson was exercising his constitutional rights of association and speech during the demonstration, and there was no evidence he had «exceeded the bounds of protected speech.»

However, he also referred to campaign ads as «pure political speech» and added that «the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting speech rather than suppressing it.»

Not exact matches

Most notably, Sarah Paulson, who won an award for her role in the miniseries The People vs. O.J. Simpson, used her acceptance speech to drum up more support, asking everyone who is able to donate to the ACLU «to protect the rights and liberties of people across this country.»

I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment.

Be aware of rules that protect employees» freedom of speech as well as the firm's ability to safeguard trade secrets and confidential business information.

«I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment,» Wheeler said after the decision was announced Tuesday.

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.

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.

But if the Facebook Like is protected speech because it ostensibly communicates «the user's approval... and support» of the person, status or thing liked, as Traxler wrote, then what of liking things sarcastically or in jest, or — to use an example from another social network — of «hate - favoriting» on Twitter?

The Apple (aapl) executive also commented on the First Amendment, which protects free speech — adding that at the time the founding fathers established this idea, there were no app developers, modern content creators, and other new forms of speech, notes 9 to 5 Mac.

«To protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer, we are finally ending the crushing, the horrible, the unfair estate tax, or as it is often referred to, the death tax,» Trump said during a September speech in Indianapolis.

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.

Critics said traffickers used the platform to sell children for sex, however defenders say its ad hosting services are protected under freedom of speech laws.

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.

The main point to emphasize here is that there is no special free speech reason to protect shareholders from managerial control of corporate speech.

The theme of his speech was the five pillars of Canada's digital strategy: improving Internet connectivity, protecting Canadians from threats like cyberbullying, ensuring Canadian content, economic opportunity and digital government.

For example, Facebook defines hate speech as a direct attack — dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority or calls for exclusion or segregation — on people from protected groups.

Source: US Treasury Official Calls for Global Crypto Regulation The undersecretary of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence called on the international community for stronger cryptocurrency regulations to help protect the financial system and national security in a speech yesterday.

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.

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.»

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

Mr Ngole will argue the decision to exclude him is illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Republicans always through this into faces of any liberal they deem has gone to far in public discourse: «Freedom of Speech is protected speech, but anything you say will have consequences — sometimes unfavorable consequences.»

Fortunately, freedom of speech is protected by the Consti.tution.

In a speech earlier this year, Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations and former apostolic nuncio to Iraq and Jordan, challenged Americans to protect religious freedom in their country: «While nobody would confuse the marginalization of religion with the actual killing of Christians in other parts of the world, it is through this marginalizing that violent persecution is born.»

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.»

It is, after all, «protected by First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.»

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.

The First Amendment of the United States Consti.tution protects freedom of speech in this country.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Westboro's practice of picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers with offensive placards is constitutionally protected free speech.

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.

And freedom of speech must protect unpopular and distasteful speech or it is no freedom at all.

The laws that protect Fred Phelps» right to hold up reprehensible signs also protect the free speech of all other religions, whether we think them right or wrong.

She insisted that the signs her father was carrying were protected under the free speech and freedom of religion clauses of the First Amendment.

Religion is protected under freedom of speech.

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 can implement what policies they want; the First Amendment only protects us against government abridgement of free speech.

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

The only point I'm having a bit of trouble with is... «we should protect free speech * no matter what the cost *»

The First Amendment Defense Act can and should protect the free exercise of religion without ignoring the freedom of speech, press and assembly for the non-observant as well as the devout.

The United States protects the right of free speech because it allows this kind of hateful speech.

Criticism is protected speech, as is satire, parody, ridicule, insults, and other «offensive» forms of speech.

Freedom of speech is about protecting unpopular speech.

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.»

The questions about religion and public life, those calling for «public» discussion, no longer focus on the verifiability of religious speech but concern quite other issues: methods of understanding and describing the religious realities, old and new, that we see appearing around us; useful criteria for assessing these religions and for defining and comprehending this new set of powers in our public life; and ways of protecting vital religious groups from the excesses of the public reaction to them, and protecting the public from the excesses of powerful religious groups — hardly questions a secular culture had thought it would have to take seriously!