Sentences with phrase «protected speech in»

Second, and perhaps somewhat more importantly, the law poses a serious threat to anonymous expression, which U.S. case law recognizes as protected speech in many cases.

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).

Since the prosecutor did not present any evidence other than the defendant's constitutionally - protected speech in his case - in - chief for hindering a police officer, the conviction could not stand...»

Only what must be proven to support a defamation claim and the very limits of what is protected speech in America.

For one thing, such restrictions are unlikely to pass constitutional muster: Pharmaceutical advertising has been deemed protected speech in a string of court rulings.

When Katie Mohammed turned to Facebook to air concerns about her community — as millions of people do every day — she didn't think she'd ever be sued for libel, and become the centre of a precedent - setting case in Ontario's laws protecting speech in the public interest.

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.»

A court in San Francisco ruled last week that Google search results are protected by free speech laws under the First Amendment, which means that the company can order its search results any way it sees fit.

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.

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?

«We are choosing to fight the deficit while also protecting education and health care,» Duncan boasted in a breezy speech.

«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.

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.

«Our objective is to provide appropriate guard rails to protect consumers and root out money laundering without stifling beneficial innovation,» Lawsky said in a speech at the New America Foundation in Washington.

In the United States, the fair use defense is designed to protect free speech and free expression.

That means Facebook deletes calls for violence or slurs that may be protected free speech in the U.S. under the First Amendment.

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.»

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.»

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.&raquIn 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.&raquin 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.&raquin other parts of the world, it is through this marginalizing that violent persecution is born.»

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

«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.

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.&raquIn 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.&raquin 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!

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.

In Cohen v. California the justices were unfortunately correct that what the dissenters on the court called «Cohen's absurd and immature antic» was protected by the freedom of speech.

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.

That's the whole point of free speech — you are protected in saying what you want without the threat of physical violence.

«In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.»

I spent 12 years in the USMC and let me tell you the true meaning of freedom of speech is protecting someone's right to say something that goes against everything you believe... that is America.

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.

We should all be grateful to live in a country where free speech is protected — whether it's Dan Cathy's comments on gay marriage or a protestor's homemade sign — and we must be wary of victimizing ourselves over something like this lest we render the word «persecution» meaningless.

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

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.

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.

In other words, just because a teaching is from a holy text doesn't protect it from becoming disrespectful speech.

The reasons were evident in the meeting and in the responses of Jews throughout the country: There were, in Skokie, many survivors of the Holocaust, but the passion for protecting those survivors was overborne by a deeper uneasiness over the prospect of restricting political speech.

If implementing a policy that restricts political speech or speech in front of customers, the policy should provide a carve - out for speech that may be protected by Section 7 of the NLRA and other applicable laws.

In a speech in Sydney on Thursday, Mr Sims will warn Australian firms that the competition watchdog will not protect them from competition from new players such as Amazon - even if it means some firms will faiIn a speech in Sydney on Thursday, Mr Sims will warn Australian firms that the competition watchdog will not protect them from competition from new players such as Amazon - even if it means some firms will faiin Sydney on Thursday, Mr Sims will warn Australian firms that the competition watchdog will not protect them from competition from new players such as Amazon - even if it means some firms will fail.

However, in his second reading speech, Barnaby Joyce, responsible for the bill's introduction, made various statements highlighting his view that the provision was intended to protect small business: