City Pedia Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

    Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

  3. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

    I, XIV. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. [1] [2] The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public ...

  4. Garcetti v. Ceballos - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos

    Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that ...

  5. Issue 1: How a 60% rule would have affected previous ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/finance/issue-1-60-rule-affected...

    Jul. 7—Issue 1, up for a statewide vote on Aug. 8, proposes making it harder to pass a constitutional amendment and making it harder for citizen-initiated amendments to get on the ballot in the ...

  6. United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech...

    United States free speech exceptions. In the United States, some categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing limitations on certain categories of speech. [1] Categories of speech that are given lesser or no ...

  7. Ohio GOP lawmakers an unhinged authoritarian band. Vows to ...

    www.aol.com/ohio-gop-lawmakers-unhinged...

    The GOP worries that judges might follow the rule of law and uphold Issue 1 while dismantling the provisions of the Heartbeat law and other anti-abortion measures lawmakers wanted to impose.

  8. Appeals court narrows Voting Rights Act’s scope for ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/appeals-court-narrows-voting-rights...

    The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act for redistricting cases in a large swath of the South, ruling against the Justice Department and voters of color who ...

  9. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_v._Pacifica_Foundation

    Laws applied. U.S. Const. amend. I; 18 U.S.C. § 1464. Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate indecent content sent over the broadcast airwaves.