Sentences with phrase «restricting free speech»

In a complaint filed yesterday, Public Citizen, along with New York law firm Alexander & Catalano, contends that the new rules go further than those of any other state in restricting free speech.

The whole episode is part of a wider trend of restricting free speech in the name of protecting particular identity groups.

He told me: «You are acting like a dictator trying to restrict free speech.

You are acting like a dictator trying to restrict free speech.

In order to restrict free speech under U.S. law, one must show that the speech itself causes immediate physical or monetary harm (e.g. child pornography, libel, false advertisement) or that it is likely to result in actions which will cause immediate physical or monetary harm (e.g. «lets go lynch that ^!

If people can buy things in order to restrict free speech you're just switching the power of censorship from election to mammon.

The researchers say that critics have repeatedly misrepresented the project, that their work is not political, and that it does not restrict free speech.

In the Season Six premiere, the duo examines the «war on porn,» a crusade by various special interest groups to restrict free speech and regulate the Internet.

Because of the difficulty of spotting the signs of radicalisation, there has been understandable concern about the potential of this new duty to restrict free speech and to potentially punish curiosity.

Handlarski, principal of RH Criminal Defence, says there's a «problem» in society with people claiming they have the right to restrict free speech because they feel unsafe.

While these platforms present new opportunities to connect people around the world, they also create attack surfaces for bad actors that wish to spread misinformation, encourage terrorism, engage in online harassment, steal personal data, restrict free speech and suppress dissent.

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.

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

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.

A congressional bill introduced in February, it proposes reforming the Johnson Amendment to allow pastors to maintain their free speech and political speech rights in their day - to - day roles, but restricts additional spending on political messaging — the kind that could turn churches into tax - free shelters for political fundraising.

Restricting speech or spending for a corporation does not in any way restrict an individual's ability to exercise their free speech, or to spend, as individual citizens.

What this means is Republicans view everyone as equal when the government isn't restricting what a person can do, so long as everyone can vote, have free speech, bear arms, open a business, etc., then everything is good.

After conducting extensive research across all corners of the UK they showed that 80 % of universities, as a result of their official policies and actions, have either restricted or actively censored free speech and expression on campus beyond the requirements of the law.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can be considered individuals as far as their political contributions are concerned and that restricting their ability to donate to candidates amounted to a violation of their First Amendment right of free speech.

In Morse v. Frederick, a 2007 First Amendment student free speech case, the Supreme Court held that a school official may restrict student speech at a school - supervised event when that speech is viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

As I understand their argument, it is this: The Blaine amendments have the effect of restricting the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected in the 1st and 14th Amendments.

The controversy polarized the art world; one camp criticized Shutz and the Whitney curators for exploiting the violence and suffering endured by Black Americans, the other camp felt the criticisms threatened free speech and limited artists by restricting which subjects are considered fair game.

But diversity of opinion is restricted to 20x20 - foot «free speech zones,» and would - be free speech practitioners are vilified, exiled to academic Siberia, dismissed or penalized — as «climate skeptics» from Delaware, Oregon, Virginia and other institutions can testify.

But diversity of opinion is restricted to 20 × 20 - foot «free speech zones,» and would - be free speech practitioners are vilified, exiled to academic Siberia, dismissed or penalized — as «climate skeptics» from Delaware, Oregon, Virginia and other institutions can testify.

Do you think that these decisions unfairly restrict an employer's right to free speech?

Sackett notes that Bates classified lawyer advertising as commercial free speech, and that such speech can be restricted but not censored.

On the other hand, many wonder about the limits of free speech, whether it should apply universally or whether it is right to restrict speech when it is used to defame or spread hate.

And also, Is it worth restricting a person or organization's right to free speech in order to achieve that aim?

J. Craig Williams: Well Bob, in the 2011 Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, it was decided that California law restricting the sales of violent video games to minors violated the right to free speech.