Sentences with phrase «right to free speech when»

Not exact matches

The right to free speech simply means that when you attempt to speak (or write) no one may rightly take action to forcibly stop you from doing so.

Where's the ACLU when their rights to free speech are being violated?

Laycock's hypothesis ripened into full - blown suspicion by June 2000 when Justice Stevens took the position that the free speech rights of the Boy Scouts were not violated by a state law requiring them to employ an avowed homosexual as an assistant scoutmaster.

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.

Once again, the right to free speech and freedom of expression is suspended when it comes to criticism of a certain Semitic ethnic group.

It's especially funny when they say they have the right to say something while those who hear that something do not have a right to respond unless the response is something the «free speech» sloganeers like.

When free speech is divorced from God, people feel they have the right to say any mean and nasty thing they want about other people.

We know we are in trouble when the right of free speech becomes a right to unlimited pornography.

«When you draw a line you destroy the rights of a free peoples there is no private versus public right to free speech it is a basic human right.»

Yes, the BP site is infuriating when you consider it in context of the company's overall attempts to minimize the spill and dodge responsibility from the start, but from a free speech point of view, BP has every right to try to put lipstick on that pig.

«When our government criminalizes the very free speech that the First Amendment was written to protect, sends people to prison for simply exercising their constitutional rights, and wields its power like a weapon against political enemies, we are all in trouble.»

Teachout said she «disagrees» with Cuomo's order this month banning business with pro-BDS companies because, «as a strong advocate for the First Amendment right to free speech, I will stand up for the right of any group to share its views, even when I disagree with it.»

When candidates get public funds, they are still susceptible to outside forces exercising their free speech rights.

Too many children don't fully learn what it means to have the constitutional right of free speech — which means that they also don't learn how to communicate with a peer when they are offended by what she says.

But the law remains murky, and judges have ruled for either side in seeking to determine when the right to free speech online trumps schools» power to discipline bad behavior.»

WASHINGTON — Teachers» unions L violate non-members rights to free dom of speech and association when they use the fees that non-members are compelled to pay for activities unrelated to local collective barL gaining, a lawyer for six Michigan college instructors told the U.S. Su preme Court last week.

But, somewhat surprisingly, when we compare teachers and others with similarly high levels of education, we find that teachers tend on average to be less supportive of free - speech rights (see Figure 1).

As a group, American teachers tend to be more supportive of free - speech rights than other Americans, but when compared to other Americans with 16 or more years of schooling teachers are less supportive of this important democratic value.

The justices said they were split on a challenge brought by a group of California teachers who claim their free - speech rights are violated when they are forced to pay dues to the state's teachers union.

When I dared to criticize the leadership of CEA on their Facebook page about the Malloy endorsement and other issues, they took away my right of free speech and barred me from making further comments.

They won their case in Ohio in 2007 when the courts ruled that they had a constitutional right to truthful commercial free speech.

At his blog Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer, Michael Fox points to two interesting recent posts that underscore this simple proposition: When at work, you have no right of free speech.

Courts have found that people still have free - speech rights when it comes to publishing information over the internet, but that they're not protected from being sued by their comments.

Fighting words claim upheld: Arrestee's speech when crowd gathered near fallen tree that had blocked traffic constituted unprotected fighting words, so that his arrest under city disorderly conduct ordinance did not violate his First Amendment free speech rights; arrestee's repeated use of the word «bitch,» his accusation of matricide directed toward his sister, his use of the phrase «fucking queer,» his pushing of third party and his raised voice all tended to show that his conduct, under the circumstances, had tendency to provoke physical altercation.

A Pittsburgh motorist was exercising his constitutional right of free speech when he gave the finger to a police officer and another driver during an argument over a parking space.

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.

Basically, this is to protect people who are exercising legal free speech and fair use rights from suffering legal burdens of fighting a case where the plaintiff alleges copyright or defamation charges against defendant when that is of extremely questionable grounds.

The Court concedes, as indeed it must under our decisions, see Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, that if denial of the right to speak had been contained in a statute, appellant would have been entitled to flout the law, to exercise his constitutional right to free speech, to make the address on July 2, 1950, and when arrested and tried for violating the statute, to defend on the ground that the law was unconstitutional.

By showing the publicly accessible TVO video in class, she was accused of creating an unsafe and toxic learning environment, the crime of transphobia, violating Laurier's gender violence policy and somehow breaching both the Charter of Rights (which actually protects free speech) and the Canadian Human Rights Act (which didn't apply to Laurier), proving that when non-lawyers in positions of power think they know the law, they always get it wrong when they use it to bully and harass their subordinates.

But freedom of expression has limits, particularly when it comes to citizens» right to be free from discrimination and discriminatory hate speech.

The lawsuit, which claims the government security demands violate Twitter's free speech rights, repeatedly asks the court to declare that it may use «zero» when stating whether it has been subject to various secret legal orders from the government.