Sentences with phrase «protects your speech if»

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.»

For teachers, «generally, the First Amendment protects your speech if you are speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern,» according to the ACLU.

Not exact matches

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?

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.

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.

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

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

If the Westboro Baptists should be protected for spouting their «hate speech,» then muslims can, and so can atheists.

Freedom of speech is the realm of the artist who must be protected especially if they express ideas that are distasteful to us.

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 fail.

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.

Ultimately, even if you are so criticized that you speech is effectively suppressed, then your legally derived rights don't protect you from being shouted down by the citizenry, but you are protected from the government.

«We're saying that these other lawsuits, once the majority members lawyer figured out that the board couldn't attack him on speech, because it's constitutionally protected, they wanted to gin up these other groups to come after him, to inflame the record, if you will,» Vacco said.

If blocking traffic counted as protected speech, it wouldn't be a crime — and it wouldn't be civil disobedience.

«The first amendment protects free speech, but if you don't have freedom of thought, do you really have freedom of speech?»

Remember that while your speech and actions are generally protected, that doesn't give you indemnity if you hurt someone or damage their property in the process of your protected activities.

«If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations,» he said in one of the most defiant lines of his speech, «I will.»

They let their cyclone model compare wind damage with either cyclone management or with hardening strategies to protect buildings — and find «if practically feasible and properly implemented, modification could reduce net losses from an intense storm more than hardening structures» [or to translate this to policy speech, do it equally good at a lower financial cost].

For example if I were to say «Mann is just an alarmist attack poodle» then according to the standard esposed by the judge, that would be a clear case of protected free speech which need not even go to court.

In addition, the proposed Congressional bill would allow American authors and publishers to countersue, and if a jury found that the foreign suit was an attempt to suppress protected speech, it could award treble damages.

If that were true, it would need to pass strict scrutiny, but you only get to the point where you impose strict scrutiny if the speech itself is actually protected, which solicitation is noIf that were true, it would need to pass strict scrutiny, but you only get to the point where you impose strict scrutiny if the speech itself is actually protected, which solicitation is noif the speech itself is actually protected, which solicitation is not.

But even if they were protected, this bill doesn't actually do anything to limit anyone's speech.

If a person engages in profane fighting words or utters a true threat with profanity, those words may not be protected speech.

Thus if a law is necessary to «protect health or morality or to defend the rights of other persons», freedom of speech or freedom of religion can be curtailed.

I realize that there are good reasons to protect speech even if one is sure that it's mistaken.

Would such surveillance be necessary if anonymity in speech wasn't protected?

If I lived in Iran, I'd rather have imperfect freedom of speech that protected something, but not everything it should, than none at all.

So, if you lived somewhere like Iran where not having a blasphemy law was politically impossible to achieve, I'd rather have an imperfect right to free speech that protected non-religious speech, than no right to free speech of any kind.

Remember that while your speech and actions are generally protected, that doesn't give you indemnity if you hurt someone or damage their property in the process of your protected activities.